Replies

As sad as this story is...and as much as we grieve for all the family, this is a mis-guided action. After the family had its day in court (with over 10 court rulings). The evidence pointed to the opinion thatTerri Shiavo HAD told her husband that she would not want to be kept alive as in such a state.
By over-riding the courts ruling, this bill puts logically in jeopardy any count decision in the future. If you don't like the court ruling...just get your legislator to pass a special law placing the decision with the governor. This bill is irresponsible and politics at it worse.

It also means that from this time forth citizens will be at the mercy of ANY family member who might disagree with their confided medical choices. It will require that people in Florida hence forth need to pay lawyers to prepare living wills to protect their rights when it comes to medical choices. (But, I suppose the legislator could pass a special law to over-ride these as well and again place the responsibility with the governor).

Most states require written living wills, for good reason. They are no harder to do oneself than an ordinary will and no lawyer is needed, only a notary. The reason Schiavo's claimed recollection of Terri's wishes prevailed under FloriDUH law is that nobody could testify to the contrary... even if he lied, how do you prove a negative? This is far, far too weak a moral reed to support such a grave decision.

After the family had its day in court (with over 10 court rulings).

Let me remind you that the hub of all of these was Judge Greer. The appeals courts would not have been able to challenge his "findings of facts." Only his cited law.

You are assumimg that the the judge , husband, and HIS family members are on the up and up...this was the first I had read about any guardian ad litem fo rr Terri, and they managed to get around that too..
see my post 21.......

In June 1998, soon after Michael asked the court for permission to remove Terri's feeding tube, the court appointed Richard Pearse as Terri's guardian ad litem. His job was to investigate the facts of Terri's case and represent her interests in court.

At the 2000 trial, Pearse concluded that he had not found clear and convincing evidence that Terri would have rejected life support.

Pearse said he was troubled by the fact that Michael waited until 1998 to petition to remove the feeding tube, even though he claims to have known her wishes all along, and that he waited until he won a malpractice suit based on a professed desire to take care of her into old age. As her husband, Michael would inherit what is left of her malpractice award, originally $700,000, which is held in a trust fund administered by the court. Accounting of the fund is sealed. But Michael's lawyer, George Felos, said most of it has been spent on legal fees associated with the custody dispute.

Pearse also said he did not find Joan and Scott Schiavo's testimony credible.

Greer ruled in Michael's favor. Appeals by the Schindlers failed. A state appeals court upheld Greer's decision; the Florida and U.S. supreme courts declined to hear the case. And on April 24, 2001, hospice staff stopped feeding her. But two days later Pinellas County civil court Judge Frank Quesada ordered that feeding be resumed when evidence suddenly surfaced suggesting that Michael never really knew what Terri's wishes were.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/sep/03091707.html

there is more at the link.........

The evidence pointed to the opinion thatTerri Shiavo HAD told her husband that she would not want to be kept alive as in such a state.

What "evidence" ? You mean because Schiavo and HIS brother and HIS sister-in-law said, uh...we think she said something like that...uh... maybe 15 years ago, while we were watching a movie -- but don't ask what movie it was, we don't remember!

You mean, THAT'S evidence???

I don't think so.

The courts are often grievously wrong. Witness Roe v. Wade.

And witness the Florida courts in the 2000 election. We very nearly had to get a legislative remedy there.

So no, I don't fear an occasional legislative remedy to abuses of the courts. It's constitutional!

It also means that from this time forth citizens will be at the mercy of ANY family member who might disagree with their confided medical choices.

I believe you're wrong. The bill as I understand it limits the circumstances under which a family member may object to situations where (a) the patient has no written record of his/her wishes and (b) the patient is unable to speak for him/herself.

It will require that people in Florida hence forth need to pay lawyers to prepare living wills to protect their rights when it comes to medical choices.

This is not a serious objection, as you recognize yourself. There are forms you can download from the internet, or copy from a library book for 15 cents a page and get notarized for free at your bank. If such forms, like wills, are not considered legally valid, then we can lobby our legislatures to make them so.

The evidence pointed to the opinion thatTerri Shiavo HAD told her husband that she would not want to be kept alive as in such a state

What evidence? Either she is brain dead or she is not brain dead, period. If, as her husband, Michael Schiavo and his attorney, Felos, contend that she is brain dead - then how, pray tell - did she convey that she wanted to die to her husband? That would be truly miraculous and I am into miraculous so I would like to know. Schiavo/Felos conflicting arguments - collusion/delusion!