After cutting through all the rhetoric, wild rumors and speculation become "fact", just what is the central issue in the Terri Schiavo case?
If you want to understand the bottom-line, most basic facts of the case and ruling, you must read the 6 documents linked to below. An hour of reading.
First, simply understand that, under Florida law, as approved by the US Supreme Court in Cruzan, (in which they gave states the right to determine what level of evidence was necessary to determine a patient's wishes) the deciding issue is whether or not there is clear and convincing evidence that Terri would or wouldn't want to be maintained on a feeding tube. It is not about determining her quality of life. It is simply a matter of a patient's ability to refuse treatment, whether by oral or written statements made while they were lucid.
As stated in 2001, by the Florida 2nd District Court of appeals in their support of the foundation ruling (linked to below, they found that there was clear and convincing evidence that she wouldn't want the tube to remain.
They also noted that Michael did not make the decision - he asked the court to listen to both sides and for the court to take his role in this matter of her tube. He did not have to do that. He could have forced he parents to challenge his legal decision from a less powerful position.
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf Greer's decision that there was clear and convincing evidence she would not want the tube.
Then, read the second district's very informative affirmation of his ruling: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/2dcaorder01-01.txt
Then, read: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder11-02.txt Greer's ruling in 2002 after the 5 doctor trial to see if there were any hope for her to improve.
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/2D02-5394.pdf The Second district court of appeals' (interesting) ruling in support of his decision.
(Her parents' attorneys picked really bad doctors IMO. This was their best chance, and they shouldn't have gotten only alternative medicine docs who were so easily impeached at trial. I posted more on that last night.)
Finally, this excellent, official time line of events, including links to other court decisions: http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm
And the Wolfson Report, which gives the most thorough history: http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/wolfson%27s%20report.pdf (Her parents asked him to be re-instated. Both sides trusted him. he's the main voice of sanity here, I think.
Anyway, that's my contribution. No one can even begin to understand the case without reading at least those 6 links, IMO.
I have a ton more, but those are the heart of it.
I know this is long, but I promise it is the shortest trip to informing yourself on the critical basics.
(As for my personal opinion, I think they should have followed the advice of Wolfson in his report.)
|
|