#1- Terri is not terminal. She is not in a vegetative state, per several physicians and other practitioners. She is brain damaged, quite likely at the hands of her 'legal' guardian.
Doctors testified on both sides- the judge accepted the PVS diagnosis. You and I might question it- and do- but he decided- therefore,legally- she is. The doctors who treated her eating disorder were successfully sued for malpractice- after she arrested from lack of potassium- several of them, in fact. If Michael's abuse was the real cause, why didn't they prove that?
#2- Food and water are not considered advanced medical life support. It is basic life support to every human being, including those reading this thread. It is not extraordinary.
The testimony that she did not want to be "kept alive by tubes"- triggered several previous Florida case precedents regarding feeding tubes as "extraordinary measures". The case law is clear- going back more than 20 years. Her spoken statements take on the effect of a written directive. Since he accepted the diagnosis of PVS, and the testimony of her wishes- he was following the law and (again) ordered it removed. To err on the side of life would have been inconsistant with his opinion that she would refuse tubes keeping her alive.
How and why the tube was placed to begin with is questionable, at best. If she was, indeed, able to take nourishment- why was the tube placed to begin with? My guess is it was because of the ongoing legal battle. I know it was removed and replaced at least once before. The ethical question of terminating life support is one many practioners still struggle with. Just as brain death caused a moral and ethical debate within the profession.
#4- There is an incredible, blatant amount of corruption on the part of the judge and her 'husband'. APS should have removed him as guardian long ago. The testimony of a guardian husband who is living with another woman, fathered children by her, and stands to inherit a large amount of money upon the wife's death should never have been accepted. The judge should never have been allowed to hear this case, much less be sitting on the bench if allegations are correct.
The parents first challenged Michael's guardianship 12 years ago- and lost. It was long before the other woman and child(ren). We don't know the facts- but it is not unusual for a judge to side with a spouse over parents, or parents over grandparents, in Florida. Apparently the facts presented in court were insufficient to remove him.
For Terri to qualify for Medicaid in Florida- her net worth must be less than $6000. There is no money left for Michael to play around with- the lawyers have it all.
I agree there should be retribution IF the allegations are correct about the Judge. But there have been a lot of allegations- and they need to be proven. But even if they are not- I believe Judge Greer's career is over when he comes up for re-election.
How and why the tube was placed to begin with is questionable, at best. If she was, indeed, able to take nourishment- why was the tube placed to begin with? If a patient is able to take nourishment orally, but only with difficulty, it is not uncommon to install a feeding tube for the mutual convenience of staff and patient. The use of a feeding tube in no way implies that a patient cannot take food orally or be taught to do so.
My guess is it was because of the ongoing legal battle. I know it was removed and replaced at least once before. The ethical question of terminating life support is one many practioners still struggle with. Just as brain death caused a moral and ethical debate within the profession.
If positive efforts were made to teach Terri to accept food and liquid orally, and such efforts failed, then there might be some basis for discussion. But to forbid any effort at spoon-feeding, and then argue that the person should die because she doesn't want to be "hooked up to tubes", is obscene.
You could take any healthy person and stick a feeding tube in them, and as long as they were denied oral food and liquids, they'd be reliant upon that feeding tube for life. Does that mean we should kill everyone?
#4- There is an incredible, blatant amount of corruption on the part of the judge and her 'husband'. APS should have removed him as guardian long ago. The testimony of a guardian husband who is living with another woman, fathered children by her, and stands to inherit a large amount of money upon the wife's death should never have been accepted. The judge should never have been allowed to hear this case, much less be sitting on the bench if allegations are correct.
The parents first challenged Michael's guardianship 12 years ago- and lost. It was long before the other woman and child(ren). We don't know the facts- but it is not unusual for a judge to side with a spouse over parents, or parents over grandparents, in Florida. Apparently the facts presented in court were insufficient to remove him.
A court is required to appoint a guardian ad litem in any case where there is any possible conflict of interest between a guardian and his ward. Terri had a guardian ad litem initially, but Felos (Schiavo's attourney) was allowed to fire him and not replace him when he had the audacity to suggest that Felos' actions weren't in Terri's best interest. It stretches credulity to suggest that a man in Schiavo's position couldn't possibly have any conflict of interest involving his wife's care, especially after an earlier guardian at lltem was fired for suggesting that such a conflict existed.
For Terri to qualify for Medicaid in Florida- her net worth must be less than $6000. There is no money left for Michael to play around with- the lawyers have it all.
If Terri gets a new guardian, that person will have a duty to demand an audit of Terri's trust fund's books. If money was mis-spent (as seems likely) such an audit would end Schiavo, Felos, and possibly Greer in jail.
Further, if Terri is given therapy and recovers to any meaningful extent, her guardian would be able to file a lawsuit on her behalf for mental anguish caused by Michael's having blocked such therapies for 13 years. The risk to Michael of Terri recovering is pretty small, but it's a risk I'm sure he'd rather not take.
I agree there should be retribution IF the allegations are correct about the Judge. But there have been a lot of allegations- and they need to be proven. But even if they are not- I believe Judge Greer's career is over when he comes up for re-election.
I haven't seen the actual transcripts from Judge Greer's court, so I don't know to what extent he's been acting criminally and to what extent he's merely been helping Felos to sideswipe the Schindlers' lawyers at every turn.
Schiavo has been able to spend $300,000 on his lawyer. Terri's parents have been able to spend next to nothing. While I don't doubt that the Schindlers' lawyers are decent people, they are no match for Felos.
You are wrong on so many counts I don't even know where to begin.
First, out of all the physicians who offered testimony as to Terri's neuro status, the corrupt Judge Greer only allowed the testimony of one; handpicked by the adulterous spouse and the sole physician willing to state Terri was vegetative. Have you not been watching the news as of late? A neurologist just went on Florida television stating that what they are doing to Terri is murder! He specifically stated Terri is not in a vegetative state.
Second, hearsay is not considered enough to pull a tube. That is ridiculous. I won't say that unethical practitioners have not used it previously, but it is not considered legitimate. Furthermore, that idea contradicts your previous plea for living wills. Why bother with a living will when it's enough for someone to say, "Hey, I heard her say she wanted to die once." Great, let's pull the plug!
The burden remains to prove a person wanted death, not to prove a desire for life. That requires written, legally notarized testimony.
Third, you are making assumptions that the entire legal process has been ethical and lawful. You are giving her 'husband' the benefit of the doubt when facts prove he is immoral and likely criminally complicit in her injury and financial defrauding. Ditto for Judge Greer.
Please take the facts in this case into account before you render judgement.