Replies

Seriously, the change in law that is most desperately needed is a way for concerned family members to have guardianship taken away from someone, even a spouse, who has serious conflict of interest and is not acting in the best interest of the patient. By denying Terry the therapy that might have restored her (to the point of being able to testify against him, maybe?) he clearly never was acting in her best interest.

Such a law already exists. Whenever there is a potential conflict of interest between a guardian and his ward, the judge is required to appoint a guardian ad litem. Terri had a guardian ad litem who complained that Michael's actions were contrary to her best interest. Michael's lawyer dismissed her, and Judge Greer refused to appoint another, finding that there was no potential conflict of interest.

Judge Greer's actions there were grossly illegal, and should have been impeachable (too bad Terri's family didn't go after him then), but unfortunately because appeals courts cannot overturn trial courts' findings of fact, and Judge Greer found that there was no potential conflict of interest, there was no way for Terri's parents to make Judge Greer follow the law.

Perhaps one thing that should be included in new legislation bearing Terri's name (if, as at this point seems likely, Terris death makes haste less important than quality) would be a provision which requires a guardian ad litem not only when a "potential conflict of interest" exists, but spells out some specific conditions under which a judge would not be able to deny a conflict of interest.

For example:

If a ward has a trust fund exceeding a certain dollar amount, and the guardian seeks to spend money from that fund.
If a guardian seeks action to cause or promote the death of a ward.

Both of those conditions clearly applied in Terri's case, and even Judge Greer would have a very hard time making a finding that they did not apply while allowing Felos to loot her trust fund or while signing her death warrant.

bump!

Regime change in the courts. Impeach activist judges!

Terri had a guardian ad litem who complained that Michael's actions were contrary to her best interest. Michael's lawyer dismissed her, and Judge Greer refused to appoint another, finding that there was no potential conflict of interest.

Judge Greer's actions there were grossly illegal, and should have been impeachable (too bad Terri's family didn't go after him then), but unfortunately because appeals courts cannot overturn trial courts' findings of fact, and Judge Greer found that there was no potential conflict of interest, there was no way for Terri's parents to make Judge Greer follow the law.

Okay, those are very good points. Now, shouldn't other judges--maybe even Federal ones-- be able to stay the order on these grounds? Why hasn't any other Judge done so?

I think you miss the point.

(before I write this, remember, I am on Terri's side, I want her to live, and I want this bill to pass so Gov Bush can step in)

The right to REFUSE medical treatment is almost a fundamental right in Anglo-American legal tradition. There are very few exceptions, mainly where parents are refusing "necessary" treatment for a child.

Where there is no advance medical directive, many states enshrine this right by allowing for a medical proxy to make those decisions for an unconscious person, and the medical proxy is generally husband/wife/family.

The law does not take your view, because there would be conflicts of interest with any or all of these, but they are also the ones who would/should have the clearest idea of what the patient would/should desire.

The judge was within the law, and, in fact, [in one of the great ironies of our times] acted "conservatively" in upholding and ruling according to that right that is enshrined in our legal system.

All that said, this case is extremely troubling, and I do hope that the Fla Senate and Gov Bush act quickly.