...She, essentially, is being treated as property...Exactly. As I understand it, she has never had an attorney represent HER.
The attorneys have been represeniting either her parents or her murderer...er, husband.
So essentially, she is being denied due process under the Constitution.
No denial of due process here; Terri Schiavo is not a person. Judge Greer determined as a matter of fact that she is a xerophytic vegetable, not a person. Courts can make such a determination howsoever they chose.
What would her lawyer do? What if he took the side that she would not have wanted feeding tubes after 8 years [amount of time in when case started in 1998]? You are suggesting she should have a lawyer that takes your view. That's representing you. Maybe she should have two lawyers. One representing each side. Wait we have that. Michael and the Schindler's. And 24 courts to make sure both sides were represented fairly. Does not mean it is the correct moral outcome. But I am not going to sink to the level of name calling of Michael and the court system in this case for following laws written by elected officials and signed by executive branches of government. That is 3 co equal branches of government. Some are advocating the court in this case take the liberal course, rule what you feel, ignore laws written by legislatures and ignore state and US constitution. Many courts are out of wack in this country, but not in this case. Maybe we need to review the laws written by legislatures and signed by governors and Presidents on right to die. Elect officials to do that.
From
http://abstractappeal.com/
Michael's lawyer represented Michael, who took a very hard position regarding Terri's wishes. The Schindlers, on the other hand, took the opposite position, and they too had counsel. It was this dynamic -- adversaries with drastically different positions, each represented by counsel, and certainly one of them taking the position that Terri herself would take -- that eliminated the need for Terri to be represented by counsel.
As for the legislature considering the appointment of counsel, I will suggest that appointed counsel would be nothing but problematic. This is not a criminal case. In a criminal case, the defendant has a clear goal: avoid punishment. The state has the opposite goal: punish. There is nothing similar in a case like this. Imagine you are appointed counsel for Terri. What do you advocate? You cannot ask her what she would like to do, so you are forced to choose a side. How would you do that? If you choose the side she would not (or did not) support, then you are not at all advocating your client's interests. If you automatically advocate that she should be given all possible medical treatment, then you are really an advocate for the state, with its unceasing interest in prolonging life, and not an advocate for your client, who might not share that view under the circumstances.
When you factor in that the case already involves counsel who are taking opposite views on what the ward would want, it becomes apparent that a third attorney or set of attorneys would not only add nothing, it would likely distort the process. The whole purpose of the trial is to make the very determination that the ward's attorney would have to make before proceeding with the litigation.