You may be right, but I hope that isn't the case. It may be that a few are instead afflicted with what I am daunted by. We watched Michael Schiavo being painted as the most villainous person on Earth, and to tell you the truth, if he did do what he appears to have done, I think he may qualify as one of the most foul creatures in existence.
The problem is that many of us have watched hyperbole become the watchword in these cases. We cannot understand that not just one court, but, if "reports" are correct, many courts, have examined the "evidence" in this case and don't find a problem with it!
The points made by many on this forum, which have yet to be "disproven", would point to a judiciary that at least appears to be completely unconcerned with justice, but rather focused totally on protecting their own prerogatives, their own turf.
Since I am unschooled in the legal arts, I, and many like me I suspect, have to rely on the legal opinions we hear. Many have appeared on this forum. But how can these opinions differ so awesomely, so widely, unless;
A:...one side is totally ignorant of the law or the facts as they apply to this case...
or B:...one side or the other is totally dismissive of fact, evidence and objective judgement, in favor of making this case come out the way they predetermined it to.
or perhaps even C:...there are colliding issues which haven't yet found good law to balance process with result.
I was trying to disguise in this piece that I personally felt a travesty had occurred here, since many of the persons who argued against intervention have experience and knowledge of law and precedent that would put us neophytes to shame.
This case isn't over, and if vested interests have conspired to strip a woman of her very right to life, then heads need to roll.
It seems to me, though, that verification of evidence is lacking here, and the astonishingly suspicious behavior of a husband who is apparently falling all over himself to frantically cremate what little evidence may remain, is nearly unbelievable. Either he is the stupidest, most ill-advised (surely his legal counsel has considered the tattered remnants of his reputation!??), person on the planet...
... or there is more to this. Frankly I don't see what it could be, but I am hoping that the autopsy will answer a few questions... if it was conducted in anything resembling a scientific setting rather than a political one.
After that, if a storm of protest (such as Jim Robinson is working to generate) forces the courts to publicly explain and justify what seem to be mouth-dropping lapses of protection of due process, then Terri may not have died for nothing.
I know that is a cheap statement to make, but many of us simply haven't the expertise to take the front lines in this case. We have to sit back, listen and learn. We don't have anything worthwhile to add, other than perhaps posts like the one I made trying to make a case for continued objectivity and attention to new evidence.
This may, unfortunately, be taken to be yawning indifference. In many of our cases it is instead a debate outside of our expertise.
But those who argue that crucial ramifications apply in hopes of future return of States' rights have made some powerful points, also. Those quick to utterly denounce the Federal intervention into previous issues seem now perhaps...indifferent...to the question, now that it has swung. We won't be taken seriously until we can construct a coherent platform on these issues.
It certainly isn't necessary that everyone agree with them, but it just seems to me that we all need to listen and weigh those arguments, rather than trash the commentors and their apparent bloodlines...
This tragedy may enable a restructuring of law to better protect the helpless... or it may so harden opinions that listening and weighing goes out the window. I hope the latter is not the case, since so much work is needed to return the country to the original "road map" laid out at it's inception, and which has proven to be the best ever devised in history.
Something bad has happened here- but we're just not armed with enough "evidence" to know what to do about it.
Hi, pickrell, thanks for your post and excellent article. You are obviously not apathetic!
evidence -- don't you feel sorry for the ME? He's charged with finding on autopsy something that SHOULD have been determined in life via PET scan and by having her out and about, receiving ordinary care and therapy that michael denied her. Since when do we have to kill patients to evaluate them? or in this case, to justify killing them?
evidence -- I look at the ongoing abuse. The best evidence that something was amiss is that Terri's room was kept darkened, that she didn't have the comforts in her room all along that she had as media props at the very end (stuffed animal, flowers, pictures), that she was not allowed to get out in her wheelchair (though she'd enjoyed that in the past, acc. affidavits). And the OM just glossed right over it when the Schindlers mentioned that Terri had not had swallowing tests.
I need to express that better...for all michael's and felos' protestations that they want the world to know Terri's cognitive abilities, they denied the free flow of information and debate, the judge would not admit them as evidence or see for himself, and the OM ignored (as I saw happen myself here in Jax).
Oh, Lord, may what was hidden and **allowed to be hidden** for so many years please finally come to light.
Guess I'm too raw still . . . heaven help the freeper who has to disparage and mock those in Terri's fight rather than finding their own little niche of the culture war to fight.