Replies

First of all, I want to reiterate that the case of this California teenager is quite different from that of Terri Schiavo. Jahi McMath fully meets the criteria of brain death., Terri Schiavo did not. Jahi's parents need to be saying goodbye and organizing her funeral.

By contrast:

None of the doctors on whose judgment the court relied ever saw Terri Schiavo. None. They examined brain scans and other diagnostic materials which did not add up to a full clinical diagnosis, because they did not involve personal contact with or observation of the patient.

Repeated appeals and reviews resulted in the same conclusions because they were merely reiterating the same opinions on the same brain scans. At no time did they admit other, more relevant diagnostic criteria.

Moreover--- and this is actually the most important point--- Terri's brain scans and her measurable responsiveness, or awareness, or lack thereof, don't actually matter from a moral or legal standpoint: because it is morally wrong, a medical ethical violation, and, in the State of Florida, a specific crime under law, to intentionally deprive a dependent person of food or water, no matter what the person's level of disability.
I'd be interested in hearing whether you understand this point.

Michael Schiavo's role as his wife's medical proxy/guardian ought to have been terminated when:

he expressed his desire to expedite her death although she was healthy (other than her brain injury), not in pain and not terminal--- this is conflict of interest
he tried to get her dead by denying routine care (e.g., treatment for a UTI) -- this is medical negligence
he spent funds designated for her therapy for non-therapy purposes --- this is violation of fiduciary trust
he entered into a common-law marriage with another woman-- this is marital abandonment and/or bigamy
and when her parents volunteered to step in and act in her interest, at their own expense, and he refused and excluded them-- this shows abandonment of his role as his wife's guardian, since he not only failed to act in her interest, but barred others from doing so.

I don't know whether claims made about Terri's husband by Terri's parents were out of line, and if they lied, that's libel. Michael Schiavo himself never, to my knowledge, charged them with libel, so that's not directly relevant to the present discussion.

Putting that to the side, Terri's mother's and father's intentions to secure basic, decent ordinary care (food and water) and prevent their daughter's premature death are not bias; they demonstrate the only legitimate attitude of medical guardianship.

Good 2013 retrospective here: Still Troubled (Link)