Posted on 04/01/2005 2:50:22 PM PST by CHARLITE
Normally I add a paragraph of two of explanation of my subject matter for the benefit of any readers that may not be familiar with the subject that I am addressing. In this case, if you have not heard of the Terri Schiavo case, I suggest you quit now and read something else.
Maybe no other case in recent history, including the O. J. Simpson and Scott Peterson cases, has generated as much controversy as the Terri Schiavo case. I can't begin to count how many articles and opinions and I've read and heard in the past couple of weeks. I've written a few myself.
While there has many conflicting and confusing aspects to the Schiavo case, there are three overriding issues about this case that I find most disturbing.
The first is how, without a document that conclusively detailed Terri's wishes, Michael Schiavo was granted the right to deny Terri food and water, that is, starve her to death. I can't get on an airplane without showing documentation, how in the world can someone be granted the right to effect the death of another on hearsay? Without a bona fide living will, Michael Schiavo's request to remove Terri's feeding tube should have been immediately dismissed.
With the state courts sanctioning this action and the federal courts avoiding the issue, it appears that it is open season on anyone for whom someone else can make legal decisions. How is Terry Schiavo any different than a child with cerebral palsy that is unable to communicate of care for him or herself? If that child's parents decide that the child would not want to continue to live in that condition, what is to stop them from starving that child to death? How would such a case be any different than the Schiavo case?
Second, every person needs food and water daily to survive. Those are basic needs, not "life support" in the sense that a respirator is life support. It is very different to remove someone from a machine that maintains his or her life than it is to deny them food and water. What legal precedent exists to not only deny institutionally provided food and water, but also prevents anyone else from providing a person food and water? People are arrested and convicted for denying food and water to horses. It is insane that the state can condone legal starvation of a human being.
The third aspect of this case that I find contemptible is the conduct of the courts. There is little question that there are unanswered questions in this case, but yet all the courts refused to consider any of those questions. If new DNA evidence surfaces in the case of a death row inmate, there is no question that the case is reopened, but why not for Terri Schiavo?
When Congress passed the law that authorized a de novo review of the case, the federal courts thumbed their noses refusing to reopen the case. Do you think that would happen if new evidence surfaced in the Scott Peterson case? It appears that Circuit Judge George Greer made up his mind that this case was closed regardless of any additional evidence that may have come to light.
This case is tragic on many levels, but none more tragic than the way Michael Schiavo forced Terri Schiavo to live out the last years of her life. Could she have been rehabilitated? Could she have had any sort of a life? We'll never know. If there was anything worse than the fate that was forced upon Terri Schiavo, it is the knowledge that the same fate could befall anyone and this government is no longer a government "for the people."
As is the case with so many issues today, most people shrug their shoulders and go on with their lives thinking that this doesn't affect them. The bottom line is that we are all affected. This case established that one man could decide that a woman wanted to die and the government let him, no actually enabled him, to kill her.
Jan A. Larson is currently employed in private industry in Texas. He is a staunch supporter of honesty in government, fiscal conservatism and equal opportunity for all. He holds a bachelor of science degree from the University of Nebraska, a master of science degree from the University of Kansas and an MBA from Colorado State University.
Comments: jan@pieofknowledge.com
Great post! Nuff Said!
Why was only one man, Judge Greer, the determinant of the facts in Terri's case?
In most other cases, it is a jury that determines the facts. Certainly the facts in all capital cases are determined by a jury, although the defendant could select trial by a judge if he were so inclined.
Qualified individuals can make wise judgments. An individual can also make horrific judgments. Our society has determined that groups of individuals are more likely to be wise. That is why we have city councils, company boards of directors, and jury trials. Groups of people tend to be "less imperfect" than single individuals.
Setting aside personalities, as distasteful as they appear to be, having only one person determine the facts seems to be the central failing of the judicial system in Terri's case. For the future, that failing could be solved by legislative action.
Judges can be slapped down. Just reduce their funding to a dollar a year. Can't read the Constitution? Buh-bye.
...and Schiavo should have never been Terri's guardian in the first place, after he abandoned her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.