Replies

Is there any PROOF that Terri wanted to be starved to death? I'm not a doctor and I am not going to pretend I know one iota about what you guys are referring to, but the question above remains the crux of this case.

The court thought there was proof.

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.

Somewhere I've seen a page that talked about exactly what she said about being kept alive by artificial means. The other people who testified were (I think) Michael's brother and his brother's wife.

Somewhere I've seen a page that talked about exactly what she said about being kept alive by artificial means. The other people who testified were (I think) Michael's brother and his brother's wife.

That's about half the story, the other half is that her family and friends testified that she was a devout Catholic which is evidence with more weight than hearsay. The court ignored it. Just like the court took Dr Deaths words as gospel when he only examined the patient for 45 minutes. PVS can not be diagnosed in 45 minutes. Forget the fact that no diagnostic imaging has been done in 10 years, or the fact the Doctor in question believes PVS patients do not have constitutional rights or his claim that a living, breathing women has a flat line EEG. The fact that he claims to be able to diagnose PVS in a single 45 minute exam is malpractice and a Judge who allows that malpractice to sway his decision is not capable of rendering an equitable judgment.