Thank you for a most thoughtful, rational and meaningful post.
Terri has been denied rehabilitation. As a result, nobody knows, or will ever know, what her state really was back in 1990. That she hasn't recovered in an environment where she is "protected" from visitors and where any efforts at rehabilitation are forbidden doesn't say anything about what she would or would not have been able to do if the $750K awarded for her rehabilitation was actually put to such use.
Florida's "right to die" laws are the result of medical advances- and assert the individual's right to refuse medical treatment. None of us know what Terri would have chosen in an advance directive. Testimony in her case more than 3 years ago- by Michael and friends- claimed she had said she didn't want to be "kept alive by tubes". Her parents disputed that testimony- and the judge ruled in Michael's favor. That is the pivotal ruling in this case- based on sworn testimony given in court.
Actually, I think a more important (and outrageous) finding was probably that there wasn't even the possibility of any conflict of interest regarding Schiavo's care of Terri.
Unfortunately, if a judge declares that there's "clear and compelling" evidence of Terri's wish to die, and there's no significant evidence that there's any possible conflict of interest involving Terri and Michael, it's all but impossible for any appeals court to challenge it.
Maybe they perjured themselves- or maybe her parents are mistaken. The Judge ruled, based on evidence presented, which story was the most credible.
Well, officially anyway. If he was biased (as seems likely) he ruled on which story he wanted to hear.
If Terri had a living will, or advance directive, she could have named any person as her guardian. Since she did not, her husband is her de facto next of kin. The family sought to have him removed for cause- and lost.
Actually, IIRC they won one such case in a trial court, but that decision was overturned on appeal because it hadn't been filed in Judge Greer's courtroom.
He legally represents her interests in court, her funds pay for the lawyers. Apparently, over 13 years of court cases, the money is about gone. Although she probably has Medicare and Social Security income- neither pay for lengthy nursing home stays. Care costs in about $50,000 year here. Only Medicaid pays for nursing homes- and it is for indigent people. Her assets have gone to lawyers- and she is now indigent. Michael will not reap any profit from her death- the money is gone. He cannot sell her organs- that is against federal and state law.
If Michael had succeeded in killing off Terri back in, say, 1993, he would have reaped a pretty big windfall from her death; I think a financial motive would have been pretty clear then. Over the years, however, the malfeasance toward his ward and her affairs has been significant and might--if examined by the right judge--be deemed criminal.
At this point, even if the looting of the trust fund is complete, I suspect Schiavo still fears what would happen if he lost guardianship and Terri were to ever recover. If Terri were to have shown significant recovery after a couple months of therapy, I would suspect her guardian would be able to file a pretty big lawsuit for his mistreatment of her.
Note that while it's by no means certain that Terri would recover, it would certainly seem like a risk Michael would rather not take.
Feeding tubes are legally considered life support for patients who cannot swallow. IV's, respirators, and feeding tubes are all "extraordinary measures" in terminal patients.
Is spoon-feeding? One of the affidavits posted indicates that a nurses' initial attempts at spoon-feeding Terri were successful, until she was discovered and prevented from making any more such attempts. Is there any legitimate reason not to attempt to spoon-feed Terri (other than Judge Greer's forbidding it because it might cause pneumonia?)
"Vegetative" state is not "brain dead"- here is a medical definition: "A persistent vegetative state, which sometimes follows a coma, refers to a condition in which individuals have lost cognitive neurological function and awareness of the environment but retain noncognitive function and a perserved sleep-wake cycle.
It is sometimes described as when a person is technically alive, but his/her brain is dead. However, that description is not completely accurate. In persistent vegetative state the individual loses the higher cerebral powers of the brain, but the functions of the brainstem, such as respiration (breathing) and circulation, remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli, but the patient does not speak or obey commands. Patients in a vegetative state may appear somewhat normal. They may occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh."
Looking at the edited video tapes as a medical professional- I, too, question whether Terri is in PVS. But expert testimony of physicians in court assert she is- and the court accepted their diagnosis.
From what I understand, making a diagnosis of PVS requires doing considerably more testing, over a longer period of time, than was done.
Additional points: The Legislature cannot pass retroactive laws. Any changes made will apply only after the law passes and takes affect. No help for Terri there.
New legislation could intervene in her case. For example, in the unlikely event that she's still able to accept spoon-fed liquid, the legislature could pass a law mandating that she be spoon-fed. For that matter, new legislation could even mandate that she be IV-hydrated immediately if such treatment is necessary to save her life.
But one of us might benefit if changes are made to insure that people in her situation are given the benefit of the doubt toward life, and guardians seeking to halt life support have to meet a greater burden of proof that the person would have chosen death. Urge your legislators to make these changes.
Actually, looking at this case, I think it highlights a more systemic problem with the legal system: in an effort to discourage judge-shopping and frivolously-repeated litigation, the legal system's rules have given extreme power to unscrupulous lawyers and judges. Given that Schiavo had $750K available to spend on legal fees, the Schindlers would probably have had to spend much more than that to protect their daughter.
To understand part of the problem, consider the case of a building with five unlocked entrances. In such a building, one thief will be able to get past four guards. Likewise, in the cases involving Felos and the Schindlers' lawyers, Felos merely has to unleash one trick the Schindlers haven't protected against; the Schindlers, by contrast, are required to protect against everything Felos might try.
Criminal investigations of the alleged abuse of Terri have been requested and denied- by local and state lawmen. The bone scan in question is 12 years old-the statute of limitations is past, and there is no new evidence of abuse they can use. It has been part of the case file for more than a decade- and only now does it become evidence of abuse. Either their laywer is incompetant or she's grasping at straws.
Terri's lawyers aren't the best. I can't fully blame them for not acting perfectly; they've been way outclassed from the get-go.
As for the questions of abuse, Michael can't be tried for any abuse shown on the decade-old bone scan, but there are some clear allegations of abuse since then. Most of those would only fully come into play if Terri were allowed to recover and did so, but some are clearer and more unambiguous. For example, someone on another thread mentioned a statute that requires feeding-tube tests be given every six months. If such tests were refused, that could constitute abuse. Depending upon the judge hearing the case, it may be possible to introduce other evidence indicating that such malfeasance was part of a pattern of abuse.
Michael appears to be a selfish person- his testimony during the malpractice trials a mere charade. or perhaps he just gave up hope- in either case, it is clear she is not his primary interest any longer. My guess is the years of court battles with her parents have become an ego thing with him- he just wants to beat them again- and Terri no longer matters. He best move to another state, where people are less likely to know his history- and pass judgement on his actions. I have to wonder what his marriage to Terri was like...
She'd told others she planned to divorce him. And otherwise, I suspect his motives are as I said before--he doesn't want to take the chance--however small--that if he lost guardianship of Terri she could recover and her new guardian could sue him and Felos for having withheld treatment for so long.
Terri suffered from bulemia, and starved herself to the point of cardiac arrest from low potassium levels. She was resuscitated after 10 minutes- and suffered severe brain damage.
That is one given explanation for her condition. I must say, it seems odd nobody seems to take an interest in confirming that or looking for anything else. When my wife died suddenly at age 27, the coroner told me that because 27-year-olds don't generally die suddenly of non-traumatic causes (e.g. car accidents) he wanted to do an autopsy. Not because he had any reason to suspect I or anyone else had killed my wife, but rather because it is practice to recard all such events among people that young as suspicious.
Is it possible she wanted to die? Did modern medicine restore her to a life she had discarded- but she is now helpless, and unable to express her true wishes? Suicide is abhorrent to me- but what if that was her intention- and all of us are imposing our morality and will on a person who does not share our views?
Given what she has survived since then, without any sort of respirator or other gear, I'd say the evidence is more likely that she has a pretty amazingly strong will to live. How many people who want to die would survive 60 hours without food or hydration?
Despite the calls for the Governor to take action- legal or not- in this tragedy- I agree with Quinn's dispassionate assessment, and refer you to his comments on this thread. Clinton was the one who was poll driven- the Bush's take their constitutional oaths seriously. Jeb's hands are tied. If the claims of misconduct on Judge Greer's part can be proved, the Legislature very well might impeach him- but it would be too late to save Terri.
I hope that enough of a conspiracy can be proven to get Greer for First Degree Murder, though I'll admit even if Felos and Schiavo sing like birdies it's unlikely.
Like Karen Quinlen so many years ago- hope remains that- if her parents are correct, and the doctor's wrong- Terri's will to live will triumph, and she will wake enough to eat and drink.
According to an affidavit, Terri appeared able to accept spoon feeding and hydration. In this case, however, the judge has forbidden it. Indeed, that specific action--forbidding any attempt at oral feeding/hydration, is what has some people here ost outraged. Removal of oral feeding/hydration is explicitly forbidden under Florida statutes, any judge's order notwithstanding.
Karen did- Terri might.
How? If nobody is allowed to put any food to her libs, how can she consume it?
It would be the miracle her parents hope for- and proof to Michael it is past time for him to divorce her, give up his guardianship, and get on with his new life...
...in prison, preferably.
I am praying for Terri, too. Praying she finds the strength to live, or finds peace as only the truly innocent can with our Father in heaven.
I pray that her years of struggling to stay alive will not be in vain--that even if she dies within the next few days, her heroic struggle will end up saving the lives of others.
And I urge each of you- not to rail against elected officials, or seek vengeance against those you believe let her down,...
Perhaps people are annoyed because Jeb Bush is showing no on-going signs of interest in this matter. Perhaps they're annoyed because he has given no clear reason why a statute which (from my understanding) positively forbids withdrawal of oral food/hydration for the purpose of killing someone should not be enforced, Judge Greer's illegal order notwithstanding.
... but to sit down RIGHT NOW with your families- and discuss how you would want to be treated if you were in Terri's place. Tell them CLEARLY what you want. Write it down in your will- name a person you trust to make decisions for you- learn from this tragedy that was so avoidable. Don't let it happen in your family.
If the person who'd naturally be appointed as guardian is trustworthy, there is no legal cause for concern (though making sure they know what your wishes are is, of course important). And if such a person isn't trustworthy, there'd better be a big legal fund set up in advance or else the other side's lawyers may win the case before setting foot in the courtroom.
Goldwater, have you LISTENED to the audio bites where Terri is DEFINITELY trying to say YES to her dad?? also the responses looking and following a BALLOON, and the wonderful , most favorite of all of mine....her " MUSIC" video. This is NOT a woman who is NOT AWARE......SORRY, but NO!!!!!!!!!
If you're referring to the U.S. Constitution's prohibition of ex post facto laws, then your statement is incorrect. From Findlaw.com:
At the time the Constitution was adopted, many persons understood the term ex post facto laws to ''embrace all retrospective laws, or laws governing or controlling past transactions, whether . . . of a civil or a criminal nature.'' But in the early case of Calder v. Bull, the Supreme Court decided that the phrase, as used in the Constitution, applied only to penal and criminal statutes.