The Terri Schiavo Case

[MikeFerrara]

That seems to be the feelings of many people that I have spoken with, in person. Many of these people feel that "it is creepy that her parents are trying to keep her alive after all this time."

I would think that it is perfectly normal that the parents would want to keep her alive, no matter how long has past. And I cannot understand why the husband won't simply remand custory of her back to her parents, especially if they are willing to pay for the medical care. I am a little uncomfortable with his instructions to unplug her.

But that is what he wants, and the courts have agreed with him. And presumably the judges believe that he has the right to decide. The irony is that his wife might very well agree with him. Even if the parents do not agree.

And the salient issue before the judges is: what would Terri Schiavo want for herself?

That issue is being forgotten, in much of this discussion.

As for me, I would have wanted to be unplugged after 6 months, and my organs donated to others, just as an example.

This seems at the heart of it. When you say that his wife might agree with him which wife are you talking about, the real wife or the common law wife? Most of us are only allowed to and only feel able to act as husband to one wife. In a country where paligimy is illegal, I find it troubling that the court can place so much weight on the word of a husband who is only a husband because of a legal marriage that he forgot to cancel when he entered into a new marriage. It's troubling that apparantly the law doesn't recognize the obvious potential for conflicts of interest. It's troubling that the rest of the family apposes his view and that they have no say because of a no-longer honored marriage certificate.

Maybe they do things different in Florida but when I got married I remember vowing things like...Forsaking all others...for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health and til DEATH DO US PART! I don't recall any provision foe when I got tired of it, wasn't happy or when it got hard on me. The language all seemed pretty clear.

It scares me to the bone that a spouse who has missed on every single point is still considered a spouse legally, left as guardian of the one he has forsaken and has the power to kill because his word is weighted above that of the rest of the REAL family.

I think it's right for gardianship to default to a husband or wife but it seems we need a better legal definition of the terms husband and wife.

Some one mentioned earlier that it was reported that he was a good and loving husband before. That's good but it's easy to be a good and loving husband to a good and loving wife and you don't get any brownie points for that. It does, though, take a truely good and loving husband to remain so to a wife who isn't able to be a good and loving wife. I know from experience that it can be hard for an hour, a day or a week and would be orders of magnitude more demanding for periods of many years. Still, that's the deal isn't it? If one wants out, there are legal ways out. I would love to say, as has been said so many times in this thread...that you can't have it both ways but apparantly you can.

 

[simbrooks]

People, please stay on topic, i am considering yet more trimming from this thread on off-topic issues and "personal" back and forth issues.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Is is not ABOUT Terri.
It IS all about power and turf wars.

There are plenty of people in this state who don't need a fraction of what Terri needs, are not in a vegetative state, ARE being abused in nursing homes and DCF is doing NOTHING about them.

How do I know?

When my GF was being abused in a nursing home we could not get DCF to do anything AT ALL. I couldn't afford lawyers to fight things out so we got NOTHING. No intervention by the Gov.. No new laws being written. Not even the existing laws being enforced.

Yes there are entire classes of people...the aged, mentally disabled and others who are put away and taken care of only well enough to keep the money rolling in. They are on the don't care list and no one wants to look because it doesn't make any of us look very good. It's like looking at your left profile in the mirror because you have a wart on the right side of your face.

A freind of mine had his father, mother and aunt all in a nursing home at the same time. This was an expensive and exclusive place yet at times neglect and/or abuse were rampant. Without some one on the out side to look out for you on the inside you have a problem. Luckily he is also a lawyer on the bar in that state (not his home state) because he was forced to take action several times. Also, luckily he could afford his own services and not every one is so lucky. For years he has spent much of his time actively engaged in looking out for These family members and that's what it takes. His father is now gone leaving his mother and aunt. This week is like most others and when he leaves the office today he'll be heading out of state. His aunt isn't expected to make it through the next few days and this time he's planning on being there at least until late next week. People with money and/or freinds definately have an advantage in our society.

Sometimes it's the few high profile cases made big in the media that draws the publics attention to the many low profile cases like yours. Unless it means votes (or not) the politicians have absolutely no reason to take time out of their vote getting day to do anything. You need to have large numbers of people looking on to get anything done.

 

[Maya]

I am heading up to North Florida for the weekend..thanks to all for an interesting discussion.

 

[Potapko]

The religious argument would likely be to keep her fed no matter what her will or anyone else's said. These organizations normally support only pro-life alternatives for any complex issue, such as euthanasia, abortion, or even contraception. Therefore, Mr. Preacher, I suspect your viewpoint is influenced. Not that there is anything wrong with that, only that it is indeed influenced.
Judges however are sworn to decide based on the federal and state constitutions and on the statutory written law. And they need to cite their basis for their decisions. And this is what becomes then subject to review by higher courts, in the same manner, based on the same criteria.

It certainly is but anyone who claims that their viewpoint is not influenced by experience and opinion is a liar. Saying that, I am sure you would be suprised by what the Bible indeed says on the issue of life and death.


Oh if only these judges DID make their decisions on based on the state and federal constitutions. We would not be in half the mess we are today. imo

But, perhaps this is a bit too political for some of the guards so I'll stop there

 

[dlndavid]

That's ridiculous, and just plain wrong. Where the hell is there a presidential library in Alabama????

My bad, oops.
I meant Arkansas.

 

[triton94949]

... I am sure you would be suprised by what the Bible indeed says on the issue of life and death.

Oh if only these judges DID make their decisions on based on the state and federal constitutions. We would not be in half the mess we are today. imo ...

I am sure you would be surprised by what the Bible says about Florida state law and Federal Constitutional law, and removing feeding tubes from disabled persons.

Absolutely nothing.

 

[Potapko]

I am sure you would be surprised by what the Bible says about Florida state law and Federal Constitutional law, and removing feeding tubes from disabled persons.

Absolutely nothing.

Duuuhhh, dat was deep

 

[triton94949]

Duuuhhh, dat was deep

Well think about what you are trying to do. You are taking thousands of years old writings and trying to apply them to modern medical and legal issues. Duh?

The legal issue is: Who is the responsible proxy for a person regarding medical treatment in the case of an incapacitated patient who left no evidence of intent in writing?

The medical issue is: Do individuals have the right to choose for themselves what medical procedures are to be performed on them?

Two thousand years ago, neither was an issue at all.

 

[simbrooks]

Give it up with the duh stuff