Please visit the new home of Majikthise at bigthink.com/blogs/focal-point.

« Spring break at Freiheit und Wissen! | Main | Schiavo blogswarm »

March 20, 2005

Schiavo Reprise I

1. What is the issue here?

Morally and legally, the Terri Schiavo case is about a patient's right to refuse medical treatment. This piece by an editor of the American Journal of Bioethics gets to the heart of the matter. (I believe the author is Professor Glenn McGee.) As he notes, there is an overwhelming consensus any adult has the right to refuse any medical treatment. Disabled and incapacitated patients retain this right. The only difference is that these patients must be represented by guardians charged to speak on their behalf.

The Schindlers and their supporters have no principled objections to the system by which guardians are appointed. They aren't arguing that parents are more appropriate guardians than spouses in general, or that the Federal courts should arbitrate all guardianship cases, or even that the withdrawal of feeding tubes is unethical. All they care about is reversing a decision on a case in which they have a personal stake.

2. What's NOT at issue here?

This case has nothing do with with euthanasia. Terri Schiavo's feeding tube has been removed because the Florida courts have determined that she would not have wanted it. She is not being deliberately killed, she is being allowed to die the death she would have wanted.

It is an insult to the hospice professionals who care for Terri to insinuate that she will die a grisly death. Terri is in the hands of skilled and compassionate professionals who will ensure that her death is as peaceful as possible. We have no evidence that Terri is capable of any subjective mental life, let alone suffering. But even those who dispute this point must admit that hospice professionals routinely manage the removal of feeding tubes in patients with normal levels of consciousness. There is nothing unethical about removing a feeding tube from a fully conscious person who doesn't want it. On the contrary, it would be medical malpractice not to honor the patient's wishes. The same principle applies to Terri Schiavo.

This case has nothing to do with the lurid gossip surrounding Terri's marriage. The courts have heard the allegations of abuse, infidelity and avarice and dismissed them as unfounded and irrelevant. The issue is whether Terri would have wanted a feeding tube. The courts decided that she wouldn't, based in part on Michael Schiavo's testimony. Michael Schiavo is Terri's legal guardian, but he chose to allow the court to make the final determination as to whether Terri would have wanted to be maintained in her current state.

In May of 1998 Michael Schiavo filed a petition for a court to determine whether Terri's feeding tube should be removed. In February of 2000, Judge Greer of the Circuit Court for Pinellas County ruled that there was clear and convincing evidence that Terri Schiavo would not have wanted a feeding tube (.pdf via Abstract Appeal, linked to previously).

Note to the too-much-TV crowd: If you think any of the soap opera allegations are relevant, read the actual decisions before repeating any more gossip. The decisions explicitly address the potential for conflicts of interest on both sides.* I guarantee that the presiding judges were better informed than you or I, having actually heard the testimony. If you still think that your contrary hunch about Michael Schiavo's motives is relevant, please explain why society at large should care about your inklings. On TV, you get to keep appealing the verdict until you get a result you like. In real life, the judge is generally considered the binding arbiter. Your disagreement about the import of various pieces of evidence doesn't count unless you can show a defect in his legal reasoning or a gross misrepresentation of the facts presented to the court.

The Second District Court affirmed Greer's decision in January, 2001, concluding:

In the final analysis, the difficult question that faced the trial court was whether Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, not after a few weeks in a coma, but after ten years in a persistent vegetative state that has robbed her of most of her cerebrum and all but the most instinctive of neurological functions, with no hope of a medical cure but with sufficient money and strength of body to live indefinitely, would choose to continue the constant nursing care and the supporting tubes in hopes that a miracle would somehow recreate her missing brain tissue, or whether she would wish to permit a natural death process to take its course and for her family members and loved ones to be free to continue their lives. After due consideration, we conclude that the trial judge had clear and convincing evidence to answer this question as he did.

Over the next several years, the Schindlers sought to reverse the decisions, arguing that new evidence had come to light about Terri's wishes and that new treatment could improve her condition. The "new evidence" in question consisted primarily of affidavits from Michael Schiavo's ex-girlfriend claiming that Schiavo had confessed to perjury. (Not surprisingly, they got relatively little milage out of this particular ploy.)

In October of 2002 Judge Greer held a new trial on the medical treatment issues. In his ruling, the judge addressed the major medical evidence, including the vaunted balloon footage:

At first blush, the video of Terry Schiavo appearing to smile and look lovingly at her mother seemed to represent cognition. This was also true for how she followed the Mickey Mouse balloon held by her father. The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. For instance, Terry Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed) examination. Also, Mr. Schlinder tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli. [Emphasis added.]

For a more detailed discussion of the medical facts, see Rivka's excellent post at Respectful of Otters. The author is not only a lucid writer but also a clinical psychologist with post-graduate training in neuropsychology, not to mention a long standing interest in disability issues. Compare Schiavo's scan to that of a normal brain at Alas, a Blog.

Finally, this case is not about the semantics of the term "persistent vegetative state." As I will argue in my next post, there is no doubt that Terri Schiavo satisfies the clinical criteria for this diagnosis. Nor is there any doubt that her condition is permanent. Her higher brain centers have been destroyed and replaced by fluid. I'm putting the PVS material in a subsequent post because I think it ultimately detracts from the central issue of the case--Terri's wish not to continue as she is.

* Judge Greer found that the Schindler's financial motivations were just as conflicted as those of Michael Schiavo. Michael was awarded $300,000 for his own loss, and the Schindlers demanded that he share it. The money was paid out in February 1993. Schiavo and the Schindlers last spoke on February 14 of that year. Judge Greer wrote that that the Schindlers fell out with Schiavo over Michael's share of the malpractice settlement. (See the 2000 ruling linked to above)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c61e653ef00d83457d71569e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Schiavo Reprise I:

» For Typing Out Loud from Mostly Muppet Dot Com
Having just recently blogged about the Schiavo case a few days ago, I'm hesitant to do it again, so I'll wade back in with another personal observation: my mother-in-law should be blogging. She has been a hospice nurse for 20 years and I think the blo... [Read More]

» Never say Never Again from Adventus
I'll try to make this my last reference to the Schiavo circus (as it should now be called). Majikthise points out several excellent points in this matter, including the one that even incapacitated people retain the right to determine their own medica... [Read More]

» A Whole Lotta Links from Balloon Juice
Here is a list of people who have commented about the outrageous behavior of my Republican party and their pandering... [Read More]

» Schiavo Blogs from Cognitive Dissonance
David Farris at The Critical Condition has done a great job answering questions I posed in this post on the Schiavo case. Read his response HERE. The blog Majikthise also has a new post on the issue HERE. While I [Read More]

» Disgusting from ed fitzgerald's unfutz
It's really the only word that fits, isn't it, what the Republicans have done in the Schiavo case. I am filled with disgust for their actions. [Read More]

» Schiavo from the sidelines from AmbivaBlog
All I can say is, it's appalling to watch two worldviews in an ideological tug-of-war over this poor suffering woman's body. The only lesson I take away from it is: for God's sake, write a living will! Two more thoughts: [Read More]

» Schiavo redux from The Bellman

On a more reasonable note, let me say that what's so upsetting about this whole Schiavo business is the way that Republican moralists claim to occupy the high ground while pursuing a blatantantly immoral course of action.

[Read More]

» The Schiavo trainwreck 2 from Samizdata.net
For an excellent overview of the Schiavo trainwreck, written by someone with a better work ethic than me (she links to her sources, I just kind of remember their gist), go to Majikthise. Out of the morass of purely case-specific issues in this case, pe... [Read More]

» The Schiavo trainwreck 2 from Samizdata.net
For an excellent overview of the Schiavo case, written by someone with a better work ethic than me (she links to her sources, I just kind of remember their gist), go to Majikthise. Out of the morass of purely case-specific issues in this case, perhaps ... [Read More]

» The Schiavo trainwreck 2 from Samizdata.net
For an excellent overview of the Schiavo case, written by someone with a better work ethic than me (she links to her sources, I just kind of remember their gist), go to Majikthise. Out of the morass of purely case-specific issues in this case, perhaps ... [Read More]

» Trial by Legislation from For the Record
Attorney Andrew Cohen, who analyzes legal issues for CBS news, has a brilliant [Read More]

» Trial by Legislation from For the Record
Attorney Andrew Cohen, who analyzes legal issues for CBS news, has a brilliant [Read More]

» Trial by Legislation from For the Record
Attorney Andrew Cohen, who analyzes legal issues for CBS news, has a brilliant [Read More]

» The Schiavo trainwreck 2 from Samizdata.net
For an excellent overview of the Schiavo case, written by someone with a better work ethic than me (she links to her sources, I just kind of remember their gist), go to Majikthise. Out of the morass of purely case-specific issues in this case, perhaps ... [Read More]

» There is no Terri to save from Lance Mannion
Priest saying the mass Easter Sunday at my in-laws' church was giving a pretty decent sermon. [Read More]

Comments

Just wanted to say thanks for your consistently lucid and well-thought out posts on the Schiavo stuff. You've done the best work I've seen cutting through all the associated nonsense to the core issues (well, with the possible exception of Dahlia Lithwick, anyway.)

The most sickening thing was hearing Tom DeLay calling the husband, Michael, 'a man of questionable morals', and then some other slimy Republicans calling him a bigamist, because he's had kids w another woman, rather than waiting for a vegetable, which she is, and courts and doctors have determined she is.
Were I Michael I'd kick those slimebags’ asses back to their home states.
Yet, the thing that I wonder of the most is, ala Nicole Simpson, Laci Peterson, and JonBenet Ramsey, would anyone give a damn of her were she black or Hispanic? DAN

My feelings exactly, Dan. Did Terri's parents expect Michael to honor his Biblical conjugal duties towards their daughter, lo these past 15 years?

It’s time for a blogswarm. No one in Congress is answering their phones.

We must contact the media to put pressure on Congress to butt out of the Schiavo case. There is a real threat to the separation of powers going on, not to mention Congress making medical decisions and person decisions and the disgusting aspects of playing politics with real peoples’ lives.

The Plan: Here is a media list of the majors and the news organizations that are working this weekend:

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], www.nytimes.com, [email protected]

Email all of them please. Tell them from your heart what you think of what’s happening and tell them they need to represent the “other” side of this story, that Tom Delay is slandering Michael Schiavo, that Congress is butting into people’s personal lives, that you are disgusted by what they are doing. Tell them what you think.

From Hullabaloo

By now most people who read liberal blogs are aware that George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. It is called the Texas Futile Care Law. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother's wishes in Texas just this week. A 68 year old man was given a temporary reprieve by the Texas courts just yesterday.

Those of us who read liberal blogs are also aware that Republicans have voted en masse to pull the plug (no pun intended) on medicaid funding that pays for the kind of care that someone like Terry Schiavo and many others who are not so severely brain damaged need all across this country.

Those of us who read liberal blogs also understand that that the tort reform that is being contemplated by the Republican congress would preclude malpractice claims like that which has paid for Terry Schiavo's care thus far.

Those of us who read liberal blogs are aware that the bankruptcy bill will make it even more difficult for families who suffer a catastrophic illness like Terry Schivos because they will not be able to declare chapter 7 bankruptcy and get a fresh start when the gargantuan medical bills become overwhelming.

And those of us who read liberal blogs also know that this grandstanding by the congress is a purely political move designed to appease the religious right and that the legal maneuverings being employed would be anathema to any true small government conservative.

Those who don't read liberal blogs, on the other hand, are seeing a spectacle on television in which the news anchors repeatedly say that the congress is "stepping in to save Terry Schiavo" mimicking the unctuous words of Tom Delay as they grovel and leer at the family and nod sympathetically at the sanctimonious phonies who are using this issue for their political gain.

Thank you for writing such a thorough and thoughtful post on this topic. I'm trying to get my hospice nurse mother-in-law to start a blog so she can comment on this subject. I think many people would be interested in hearing what she has to say on this and other topics.

We spend so much money and effort worrying about how people enter this world, it's always fascinating to me to hear her speak about the many different paths people take in leaving it.

http://www.mostlymuppet.com/archives/2005/03/20/for-typing-out-loud/

I'd like to add something that I said previously about having a Living Will. Subsequently it been pointed out (ABC NEWS), correctly, that these instruments do not always work, and that other ancillary documents are often recommended. Most commonly the document recommended is a durable power of attorney. My own family has one of these and it includes an explicit "medical directive". Also, it may help to have a "no resuscitation order". Each state's requirements are slightly different. Why the federal government would suddenly want to legislate in an area of domestic law previously left entirely to the states, tells me this last ditch effort to "save Terri" is pure prairie league political theatre.

My actual point previously, was that it would be highly unlikely that the Repuglian Calvary would be riding to the rescue of Ms. Schiavo if the record of her intentions regarding heroic care were unambiguous. An intent not to have heroic care applied could be clearly stated in a "Living Will" instead of being testified to by a husband that has motivations to lie.
It would be hard to argue sucessfully against a legal guardian attempting to carry out the express written wishes of his ward. The Florida courts have already decided the intent issue as pointed out in the post. No federal court is going to substitute its judgment for a state court applying state law in an area of law not previously preempted by the federal government. And contrary to Senator Frist's allegations there has been plenty of state due process in this case. (Of course you never know what kind of partisan idiot is sitting on the federal bench in Florida after 30 years of court packing.)

So what we have in Florida, as Mr. Schiavo correctly points out, are Washington politicians making hay for their own political ends, lead by a politician, Tom Bugman DeLay, who has reached new heights of hypocracy in a town already noted for it world class hypocracy. His standards of morality even makes other Texans hold their nose. And that's saying some.

I believe Terri Schiavo's body should now be allowed to die peacfully - her mind having died 15 years ago - but my principal reason differs from those most widely promoted by other advocates. It is not because Michael Schiavo deserves to win this case. He does, but his life will not be ruined if he loses. It is not because Terri Schiavo deserves to have her wishes honored (or what we presume to be her wishes). She does, but although the wishes of one who is now long beyond wishing should not lightly be disregarded, they are not inviolable. The world can tolerate a disregard for such wishes if a higher purpose is served, and certainly Terri Schiavo herself will not be offended by anything done in the year 2001. (My reference to a "higher purpose" here is hypothetical; I don't find such a purpose in Terri's case). It is certainly not because I wish sorrow for Terri's parents. In truth, I grieve for them, but this is a case, whatever its legal outcome, that they cannot win emotionally. If Terri's body remains alive, her parents will remain trapped in the hell of her unending incapacitation. If she dies soon, they will suffer the finality of her loss and the gall of defeat by an adversary. Either way, they are doomed to great misery that I would not wish on them. Finally, although I agree with concerns about legislative interference in the affairs of the judiciary, I have to concede that if legislators were interfering in order to right what I believed to be an egregious wrong by judges, I might not be outraged (Democracy is messy, isn't it?).

I have been ruthlessly honest with myself in declining to rationalize my position by invoking the above reasons, however valid they may be. My main reason for supporting Terri Schiavo's "right to die" is based on the same issue that motivates opponents of that right - abortion politics and the power of the religious right. A victory for that faction in this conflict will reinforce their power and a defeat will diminish it. The threat posed by fanatical minorities to individual freedoms is substantial, and it is growing. They know what the stakes are, and it is incumbent on the rest of us to acknowledge those stakes as well. To do that, we must be honest with ourselves, and not ashamed of the motivations that our honesty reveals.

This is the letter I sent: The subject was "shame"


Am I not allowed to die? I can't hear and though my eyes are open I can't see. Is the Congress more powerful than God? I shared my most profound thoughts with my husband, but now, despite his best intentions, my wishes are not being honored. Who are you? Why are you doing this to me and my family? Are politics worth the agony that you are causing? Have you no shame?

Dan Schneider wrote:
The most sickening thing was hearing Tom DeLay calling the husband, Michael, 'a man of questionable morals', and then some other slimy Republicans calling him a bigamist, because he's had kids w another woman, rather than waiting for a vegetable...

No, Dan Schneider, the "most sickening thing" is when a man abuses and tries to murder his wife, but the next-most sickening thing is when people use slurs like "vegetable" to refer to the mentally handicapped.

The Oxford English Dictionary says:
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/vegetable?view=uk
"vegetable. noun. ... 2, informal, derogatory a person who is incapable of normal mental or physical activity, especially through brain damage."

Encarta says:
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861732226
"vegetable. noun. ... 3. offensive term: an offensive term for somebody in whom normal functions are severely reduced or absent, often as a result of injury to the brain"

American Heritage / Bartleby says:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/33/V0043300.html
"vegetable. NOUN: ... 2. Offensive Slang One who is severely impaired mentally and physically, as by brain injury or disease."

So, Dan Schneider, do you get your kicks out of that kind of gutter talk?
If Terri were an Italian Jew instead of Catholic would you call her a "wop kike vegetable?"

-Dave

>>No, Dan Schneider, the "most sickening thing" is when a man abuses and tries to murder his wife, but the next-most sickening thing is when people use slurs like "vegetable" to refer to the mentally handicapped.<<

Please get with program!

A court of law has examined the accusations of abuse levelled against the husband and found them wanting!
How dare you claim abuse against a man who has been found innocent of the carges?

Secondly Terri is not "menatlly handicapped". Her higher brains functions - indeed her higher brain - has ceased to function and exist. Mentally there is no Terry left. This has also been decided in a court of law, with independent expert witnesses, and the judge as a fair arbitror.

Sad as it is - her husband chose to let the courts decide his wifes fate, after he had cared extensively for her for 7 years - in my oppinion a good choice since they are not hampered by personal feelings.


/Soren

Dave, You missed the point- the only reason this is a story is cuz she's WHITE! On some other news sites there are links to similar cases of non-whites who died peacefully. Ever norice why only white babies are on anti-abortion signs? Stop fingering your anus. There is no record he evr abused her- the so-called abuse was that he refused to let them take his wife outside- where in her condition she cd die of something far more quickly and cruelly. And those videos in the media are all several years old. She is, according to all the doctors who examined her and the courts- most of them conservative, a vegetable.
With the way you support her one might question the ease with which you could be so defined. DAN

Dan, I agree that calling her a "vegetable" is derogatory and unnecessary. She's in a persistent vegetative state, but she still deserves to be treated with respect and dignity.

The entire world is watching... and seeing the worst of both of our two major political parties, at their worst. Enough, allow the poor woman the dignity to die and perhaps go to a far better place.

Soren wrote:
A court of law has examined the accusations of abuse levelled against the husband and found them wanting!
How dare you claim abuse against a man who has been found innocent of the carges?

Soren, that simply isn't true. The Florida DCF is investigating those charges now. The charges have never been investigated before, by any law enforcement agency. The local Sheriff declined to investigate them. Michael Schiavo has never even been charged, let alone found innocent.


Soren wrote:
Secondly Terri is not "mentally handicapped". Her higher brains functions - indeed her higher brain - has ceased to function and exist. Mentally there is no Terry left.

Judge Greer apparently agrees with you, but he's never even met Terri. More than four dozen neurologists disagree with you about that, Soren.


Soren wrote:
This has also been decided in a court of law, with independent expert witnesses, and the judge as a fair arbitror.

Terri's temporary guardian ad litem (for six months), Richard Pearse, recommended that a against Michael Schiavo's being allowed to represent her legal interests, and recommended against halting her feeding. But judge Greer overruled him:
http://www.hospicepatients.org/richard-pearse-jr-12-29-98-report-of-guardianadlitem-re-terri-schiavo.pdf

Terri's next temporary guardian ad litem (for 30 days), Jay Wolfsen, was expected to be more sympathetic to Michael Schiavo's position, since before he was appointed GAL he told the local press that he thought Terri's feeding tube should be removed. But after studying the case he recommended, instead, that further tests be done. But Judge Greer overruled him, too, and let Michael Schiavo to refused to permit the tests.


Soren wrote:
her husband ... cared extensively for her for 7 years.

Her injury occurred in 1990. In late 1992, around the time of the malpractice award, Michael Schiavo ordered a halt to her therapy. Michael stood to inherit the malpractice award money upon her death. By early 1993 he was clearly seeking ways to hasten her death: he wrote a DNR order for her, and tried to deny her treatment for a UTI. Here's a nurse's description of the "care" she received:
http://www.zimp.org/stuff/Affidavit%20C%20Iyer%20082903.pdf and http://www.zimp.org/stuff/Affidavit%20H%20Law%20083003.pdf

Note, too, that prior to the malpractice award, neither Michael Schiavo nor any other person ever claimed to have heard Terri Schiavo express a wish not to be on a feeding tube in circumstances like those in which she now finds herself. GAL Pearse found that too convenient recollection not credible. But, as usual, Judge Greer ignored that finding, and sided with Michael Schiavo. Greer declared that there was "clear and convincing" evidence that the alleged conversation really occurred, and as the trier of fact that lone judge's very dubious declaration has been the legal conclusion of all the Florida Courts ever since.

-Dave

Greer declared that there was "clear and convincing" evidence that the alleged conversation really occurred, and as the trier of fact that lone judge's very dubious declaration has been the legal conclusion of all the Florida Courts ever since.

And that, is the way the court system functions.

The trial court is always the finder of fact. Only under extraordinary circumstances is the presumption that the court acted properly in that role, reviewed and reversed. That has not happened here so, much as you may not prefer the finding, it is the finding.

Arguing against it to make it go away merely shows you don't understand the terms of the discussion, and wish to toss out the entire legal system in order to run things your way. Fortunately, you don't have that authority.

In a philosophical context, you might as well argue against a logical axiom.

More than four dozen neurologists disagree with you about that, Soren.

Not neurologists. Hacks. Read the earlier post about medical evidence and so-called "experts."

Dave--

Having reviewed your comments more thoroughly, I see that all your complaints are that the Florida judges (Judge Greer in particular) simply have not agreed with you on the facts of the case.

And when the Federal courts disagree with you, or more likely, decline to take this case despite the Congressional action, what then? We can disagree as to the findings of law (that's what appeals are all about), but findings of fact are usually final, and for good reason.

You've given no good reason why the judge abused his authority in this case, except that you don't like the results. That's not good enough.

No court has ever ruled in favor of Ms. Schiavo's parents, which is telling. As an ethical matter, there may be a question of whether continued treatment in humane or inhumane.

But as a legal matter, this is over. The "last gasp" of going to Federal court will be futile. I'll be unpleasantly surprised if the Court in Florida doesn't assert its independence and toss the case out on constitutional grounds (I can think of three, based on this new law, off the top of my head).

Changing the court system to unravel the result of this one case is not only foolish, it is dangerous. The questions here are moral and ethical, even philosophical and theological. But they are not legal. The system did what it was meant to do. You don't seem to like the outcome. That's what the system does, too; decide hard cases and leave some unsatisfied.

Rivka- vegetable or vegetative states are terms that doctors use, as is retard. That it offends you is an active choice that you make, and are free to. Wd that Terri and her husband were aloowed the same freedoms. DAN

The disturbing portion of the case for me has been that there have been two guardian ad litems appointed from outside the family to represent Terri and both have been dismissed after making statements viewed as favorable to her getting renewed treatment. The blood relatives' position has been that during the litigation, somebody neutral should be Terri Schiavo's guardian. The idea of a neutral guardian that can look at things with a more dispassionate eye seems to be a reasonable request that has been ceaselessly attacked by Michael Schiavo and his supporters.

With so much overwrought emotionalism being tossed around, the smart thing would have been to let a neutral take the PR hit and let the chips fall where they may. Michael Schiavo's never wanted to do that. It's just bizarre to me that an honest husband would have picked the course that he has chosen.

TM Lutas, you might want to read over this site:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

Why did Terri’s husband get to make the decision about whether she should live or die?

Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life-prolonging measures for Terri.

As Terri's husband, Michael has been her guardian and her surrogate decision-maker. By 1998, though -- eight years after the trauma that produced Terri's situation -- Michael and Terri's parents disagreed over the proper course for her.

Rather than make the decision himself, Michael followed a procedure permitted by Florida courts by which a surrogate such as Michael can petition a court, asking the court to act as the ward's surrogate and determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael did this, and based on statements Terri made to him and others, he took the position that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The Schindlers took the position that Terri would continue life-prolonging measures. Under this procedure, the trial court becomes the surrogate decision-maker, and that is what happened in this case.

The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures.

Why didn’t the court appoint a guardian other than Terri’s husband to speak for her?

The trial judge could have utilized a guardian ad litem as a neutral party to speak for Terri, but in the end the trial judge did not do so. The Second District affirmed this decision and explained its rationale in this way:

Under these circumstances, the two parties, as adversaries, present their evidence to the trial court. The trial court determines whether the evidence is sufficient to allow it to make the decision for the ward to discontinue life support. In this context, the trial court essentially serves as the ward's guardian. Although we do not rule out the occasional need for a guardian in this type of proceeding, a guardian ad litem would tend to duplicate the function of the judge, would add little of value to this process, and might cause the process to be influenced by hearsay or matters outside the record. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's discretionary decision in this case to proceed without a guardian ad litem.

Well there is one good way to look at these live and let die liberals, as they continue to abort their babies, continue to kill off anyone who cannot take care of themselves even though they are alive, we as pro-life republicans can look forward to there numbers dwindling in future generations, we pro-lifers will continue to pro-create (and not kill our babies), continue to care for our sick and affirmed, all the while the liberal demoncrats will slowly kill themselves off, so at least there is that to look forward to by my grandchildren, they will finally be able to live in a god fearing, free country again.

Moreover TM Lutas, you could read this

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf

which is the report to Governor Bush of the guardian ad litem who was appointed due to "Terri's law."

I wonder how you became so misinformed about this case.

this schrivo case is NOT about the right to live or die...Its about 2 things.
that 15 yrs ago michael attemped murder failed on terri and st.pete.police are hiding files and protecting thier employee.Rice and Greer and michael all know eachother personally!
there was no proof that terri didnt or did want to die this way but one thing is for certain.Greer is helping protect Micahel and dissmissed all other evidence to the contrary.
michael went to court 6 or 7 years ago because a doctor was not allowed to administer anitbiotics to Terri simply because Michael wanted her to die!
Do you think she wanted to die from an infection?..was that something michael had heard her say too? and this is before feeding tube was insertred. read the court papers on the internet.
michaels attrny felos works for hospice. michael and felos has a tie to the Hospice insurance company ... it happens to have the same last name as Michaels Fiance'!!!

this case gained coverage when witnesses and employees came out and FOUND out that Greer and the ST pete POLICE dept waere all in it together.
THESE wittnesses went to the republicans the bushes because they were not corrupted and new nothing about floridas corruption and involvment in this case.they knew theyed be heard!!! the democrats not knowing
the details stood behind GREER and tried to DIVIDe OUR STATE AND COUNTRY by agreeing with GREERS dicission and ATTACKING our president and other Reps....making more fuel for a fire that was never theres... plus also misleading americans via the media.

the fbi have been contacted but the line of corruption goes hire than i think it does....
no one has investigated Michael upon the accidently callapse that managed to break his wifes rib and asfixiate her leaving marks on her neck.

democrates jumped the gun and helped a murder go free.
in conclusion ....if god saves terri she will no longer be on this earth! If everyone new the facts she coulvd been saved by someone.
Terri will never be forgotten and a full investigation with an autopsy needs to still be done.

The comments to this entry are closed.