Terri Schiavo

[electricland]

I hear that requests for living wills are up. No wonder.

For the record, if I'm ever in a persistent vegetative state, with no hope of ever regaining consciousness or looking after myself... please, pull the plug. No artificial respiration or feeding for me. If my cerebral cortex is gone, I want to go with it.

Bottom line, though: Terri Schiavo's case is not about what I would want for me, or what anyone else would want for themselves. It's about what Terri Schiavo would want for herself. The Florida courts have repeatedly agreed with her husband that she would not want to be kept alive in this state. Her parents have attempted to show that she would. Many court decisions have found their evidence is not credible. It's really very simple, and I find the way the case has been hijacked by the religious right to be absolutely nauseating.

It's a sad, sad case. I really feel for her parents, who desperately want to believe that their daughter can have some quality of life, that she recognizes them and will eventually get even a little bit better. But they are clinging to a false hope. Terri Schiavo is not going to wake up. There is no therapy that can replace her missing brain tissue. She isn't in there any more.

For more information and far more informed and eloquent commentary than I can give you, go read rivka's assessment of the medical and ethical aspects of the case and Abstract Appeal's timeline and legal commentary. majikthise also has a few things to say about the publicity campaign that has surrounded the case.

[Edit: read this post too -- it's an excellent summary of the case to date and covers the ethical issues in detail. Read the comments too.]

Comments

[duir-id.livejournal.com]

just an fyi.... you can sign a living will that states do not resusitate.... it cuts out all the confusion of what is wanted by YOU if anything should happen....

[lietya.livejournal.com]

Well, it *did.* The "Terry Schiavo Bill" is vaguely worded, which means that it could be used as a challenge against all living wills - not to mention that it would not have stopped this particular case, as the legislators have indicated that a living will is not binding in their (unsolicited, stupid, not-legal) opinion.

[duir-id.livejournal.com]

oh you gotta be shitting me?

well there goes the last hope for freedom in the US then when you can't even have the right to die with dignity.....

bloody religious politicians and they bitch and moan about the Muslim states. Whats the bloody difference? Regligious fundermentalists are the same no matter what hat they are wearing..... Hypocrits!

[lietya.livejournal.com]

On the bright side, it only matters if your case gets national attention....

Yep, I wonder all the time why they don't realize that fundamentalism is all the same, regardless of which God they paint it with.

[duir-id.livejournal.com]

and the stupid thing is the top three religions which are the top three fundermentalists all worship the same bloody god in the first place. A god who is supposed to be tolerant, all caring and forgiving. They all believe in an after life that is better than this one, so why not, as in this case, let the poor woman die so she can go to the better life. As a matter of fact, why don't the bloody rest of them take it upon themselves and bugger off to the next life too. Would make the world a much better place to live for those of us that apprechiate it.....

[lietya.livejournal.com]

Now *there's* a suggestion I could get behind!

[lietya.livejournal.com]

What scares me is that I'm in more or less her position - my husband has been informed loudly and at length that I DO NOT want to be kept alive, but my mother is a hysterical Catholic with a penchant for overriding my wishes. I've already told him that if it comes to that, don't bring a court case, just come visit me with a spare pillow and "accidentally" trip on the alarm wires and disconnect them....

What I still don't get is that I thought the husband *was* the next of kin with the right to make this decision, legally. I've never understood why the parents' objections were ever listened to in the first place.

[duir-id.livejournal.com]

technically the husband is the next of kin....

[lietya.livejournal.com]

You're confirming what I thought - seeing as they have no more legal standing than a random stranger (now), why are her parents not just told to shut the fuck up because they can't bring a suit in the first place?!

[duir-id.livejournal.com]

because this is America, and the all mighty $$$ rules. Someone is making money out of all this at the expense of the poor woman and her husband....

[electricland.livejournal.com]

He is the next of kin. Abstract Appeal has some FAQs:

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.

Basically -- and I am so very much not a lawyer -- the husband was the legal guardian and could have made the decision on his own, but instead he didn't feel comfortable doing so (which I can certainly understand) and asked the court to hear all the evidence available and decide in his stead. The parents disagreed with his position and brought evidence to say that Terri would have wanted to be kept alive, but the court found otherwise.

[lietya.livejournal.com]

Ah, I see (and thanks for the sources!). So he probably should never have invited them in, in hindsight, but now that he has it's too late. Of course, the courts decided what he'd decided.... it seems fairly clear that legally the parents are pretty much out there on this one, but so long as they keep appealing now (and as long as the legislative branch is willing to step in for the judicial, even though no one asked them to), the case, and she, will not die.

Argh.

[electricland.livejournal.com]

I bet you they'd still have sued, if he'd just gone ahead and asked for her to be taken off the feeding tube in the first place....

[lietya.livejournal.com]

Probably. Still, we could hope that if he hadn't invited the camel's nose in by offering the court guardianship, that it would have been thrown out (well, that, and this would've taken place before the recent "culture of life" got established *cough* Bush *cough*).

[raithen.livejournal.com]

I was screaming at my radio on the way into work this morning.

Life is precious. So is death. Why can't they just let her go in peace?

*sigh* And that this all came to a head on Passion Sunday? The irony is not lost on me....

[electricland.livejournal.com]

Argh. Yes.

Although you know, if it was the view of the court and the legal guardian that she would prefer to be kept on life support no matter what, I'd be okay with that TOO (although it certainly wouldn't be my choice).

It's the 3-ring circus that really upsets me.

[mrs-cake.livejournal.com]

A) Damn you for posting that, I had such a happy day so far... What a terrible, terrible story. I can't stop following all those links, trying to make sense of it all.

B) Thank you for posting that, I had no idea... Gives you pause to think, doesn't it.

[electricland.livejournal.com]

It is terrible. I was going to try and ignore it, but then the nasty commuter paper had the story on the front page. Also, I have Views on the matter.

*hugs*

[pretentiousgit.livejournal.com]

Urgh. Welcome to me not wanting to move to the US of A. I was reading something about this in the Globe's Focus section this weekend.

Thanks for the links. Most informative.