Replies

I believe the answers to your questions are "no" to the first and "yes" to the second.

I want to add another legal implication of this case:

It is doubtful that most people who marry would consciously agree to put their spouse in the position wherein if they are disabled they would grant near arbitrary authority to spend funds allocated for health care on euthanasia lawyers, deny antibiotics, halt dental care, restrict parental visitation, forbid swallowing training, withdraw nutrition when the diagnosis is disputed etc.

This case dramatically illustrates the fact that at least in Florida, this is precisely what one is doing when signing on the dotted line of a marriage license.

Consider this precedent if you're contemplating marriage: Is this a person with whom I would trust my life more than my parents?

I'm really trying to determine if he is exercising a "catch 22" to some culpability he may have in her condition.

I think Michael is pretty confident that an autopsy won't prove anything. I would think any injuries he inflicted would have healed long ago and even if they didn't, how would you prove he did it? But I think maybe they can pursue a wrongful death action. We'll just have to wait and see.

Normally, you are culpable in the eventual death of a victim if your actions caused the death, no matter how long ago it might have been. Florida may or may not have a statute of limitations on murder, perhaps someone else can tell you.

However, you're not responsible for the death if there's an intervening act which actually causes the death, in this case the removal of the feeding tube.

If I shove you off a skyscraper, but somebody shoots you on the way down and kills you, I'm going to be responsible for attempted murder, not the actual murder.

So, even if you had solid proof that Michael tried to kill Terri 15 years ago, the fact that he got a court to order her death is going to be a pretty good defense to a murder charge, assuming that one could even be brought at this date.

At least that's how I remember the discussion in law school. I don't practice criminal law.

Question one: If Terri Schiavo passes from a court imposed order, will this absolve or render immune from prosecution her husband if it is later found that he was responsible for her condition?

Answer: Yes and no.

He is legally innocent for her death, but may be guilty of assault and neglect, assuming the statute of limitations have not run out.

Question two: If she was to continue on the feeding tube but later succumbed to her injuries, would this be considered a homicide if it was found in an autopsy that her injuries were inflicted by her husband?

Answer: Absolutely not going to happen, but the answer is "yes."

letter I sent to Gonzo:

He has the power to issue an order, per request of White HOuse and Conress - but refuses to

letter I sent to Gonzo - (for contact to Him: http://www.usdoj.gov/contact-us.html and U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 andDepartment of Justice Main Switchboard - 202-514-2000 Office of the Attorney General - 202-353-1555 ************************* Alberto Gonzales, U. S. A. T. Dear sir: You are allowing a precedent of LEGAL MURDER to become the law of the land. Help me to understand. ? - your allowing the murder of Terri Shiva will NOT protect you ambitions for SCOTUS - it will sink it. People are slowly - but surely - beginning to understand where the hangup is. The only "evidence" that this woman didn't want to be kept alive this way is the questionable word of a conflicted, abusive husband-in-name-only and his own brother/sister in law. Others have testified she said the opposite when remarking on someone on life support (which she is Not - except by a law they conveniently passed to put a feeding tube on the 'artificial means" list, the better to murder her with) - by saying she tought it was wrong to 'pull the plug' saying "Where there is Life there is Hope." (Terri) Why is this being ingored? This one dubious hearsay statement by her adulterous husband, someone who has several self-serving reasons for wanting this innocent person dead - is the ONLY word that this murder is predicated on. What about even the fact the she has been imprisoned illegally in a Hospice - that, at the time, Felos was on the board of! - denied therapy (against the law, and even medical treatment for infections - Legal?) and all the rest that proves gross neglect of a 'guardian'. In addition, this "guardian" stands to profit from her death. It isn't that the 'family' agrees: her blood family want, at the least, her right to be tested - to have an MRI and PET, to look into the matter of ex rays that show a pattern of abuse, etc etc. If you allow this to finish this way, her blood is on your hands, too - and in the future, countless millions of "inconvenients" . Abortion rights was never meant to become the holocaust is has. This "legal murder" will become a genocide of the incapacitated too and you will have countless millions of deaths to think about - to think: "I could have stopped it." Either way = this will be your legacy. Who do you see when you look in the mirror?

I would like to add to those questions.

If by removing the feeding tube (which is artificially supplied sustenance) and then ordering that no food or water even be attempted to be given to said person.

Is this tantamount to murder?

Food and water is not artificial life support. I would argue that it's not artificial even through a tube, but let's for arguments sake say that the tube is artificial. Denying that same person the ability to be given food and water naturally. Is it or is it not murder?

I know this is a little off your exact topic, but I am trying so hard to think of something that might create some way for someone to stop this killing.

I just sent this fax to Gov. Bush. Now, be nice...no criticism of Bush allowed. This is not for battle. We must all refrain from being negative and hope he can still do something. I hope this helps:

March 28, 2005
The Honorable Jeb Bush, Governor Florida

Urgent: To Save Terri Schiavo

Dear Governor Bush:

Please consider this comment:

Could Terri be saved by a contest that she was psychologically imbalanced when she allegedly said she did not want to live on life support? Could this be challenged now to try to save her life?

Consider this:

Last night Geraldo Rivera on FOX News had a segment where he interviewed a woman who is a specialist who deals with bulimia. The reason was is that this is the condition that is being purported to be the cause of Terri’s heart stoppage. I offer these thoughts:

1. The original diagnosis for Terri's death was nutritional deficiency/bulimia.

2. Later Michael Schiavo won a lawsuit because the doctors mis-diagnosed her and did not recognize the bulimia problem.

3. Schiavo supporters and the media are continuing to offer this as the cause of her "collapse."

Ok...the question – and a possible way to get her a new court hearing, and stop this starvation/dehydration:

1. Bulimia is, basically, a psychological disorder. Bulimics have a very poor self-image; they feel they need to be perfect; many are never cured because the psychosis is so deep. They often die from this psychosis and the eating disorder it causes.

2. In that state of psychologically connected obsession, how could anyone's comment, about such a serious issue as life support could be considered rational?

3. Most medical professionals agree that those afflicted with this disorder are not mentally healthy, often are depressed, irrational.

4. How can any legal system support the desires of a woman who was, evidently, psychologically unbalanced at the time of the "supposed" comment?

If they are going to insist this as the cause, couldn’t it be insisted that the Court be forced to revisit this case, because the decision by Judge Greer did not consider her mental state?

God bless Terri. God bless you for your efforts.

Signature It seems to me this might open the door for a legal investigation/debate, whatever that could, in the meantime, require that Terri's feeding tube be reinserted.