Burden of Proof: The Killing of Terri Schiavo

Washington Dispatch ^ | October 24, 2003 | Judie Brown

[NYer]

In a court of law, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. They must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused actually did commit a crime.

In the court of public opinion, it is frequently the case that individuals who are accused of a crime are judged guilty regardless of the facts. Some call that bias; others label it as nothing more than ignorant.

In the case of a severely disabled woman whose starvation death was ordered by a Florida judge, the court of law has not determined her guilt or innocence, because she committed no crime. The court has preferred to arrogantly deem it compassionate to put her out of her alleged misery by sanctioning an act of murder.

Murder is defined as the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought. Such a definition applies in this case. However, no human court is going to find this particular judge guilty of a crime, and no human court is going to query this woman’s husband regarding why he thinks she should die. That has already been taken care of through an arduous five-year court battle that may yet end with this woman’s tragic death — a death resulting from court-approved removal of food and water.

As one attorney recently wrote, if a judge or a state governor were to order the execution of a serial killer on death row by means of withholding food and water, a variety of courts would intervene at once to block that order, which would amount to constitutionally-prohibited cruel and unusual punishment. But in the case of Terri Schiavo, who is not terminally ill, and was not near death until the starvation process began, it has been ruled that her life is not worthy to be lived. Thus others were willing to impose on her a slow, agonizing death by starvation. That is murder according to the natural law; but according to the Florida judicial system, it is an exercise in compassion. So much for human justice!

The Terri Schiavo case is currently receiving widespread media coverage. The callous disregard for her human dignity is being exposed in many venues – but only at the eleventh hour. Over the past five years, however, as this case has been unfolding, nary a word could be found describing the barbaric nature of what some were proposing should be done to her.

Perhaps the most appalling aspect of this woman’s plight is rarely noted. Terri Schiavo is a Catholic who, one would hope, would have been staunchly defended in every conceivable way by the Catholic hierarchy in her state. After all, she is vulnerable, she is totally dependent on others to speak for her, and she is a human being with the gift of human dignity that God bestows on each of us.

The sad reality is, however, that Florida’s Catholic bishops have been virtually silent. These bishops joined together in a public statement begging Gov. Jeb Bush to spare the life of convicted killer Paul Hill, a man who murdered two people. The prosecution in the Hill case did its job. Yet the bishops publicly pleaded that his life be spared. But two days after defending Hill’s life, these same bishops said the Church could not make a decision regarding whether Terri Schiavo should be starved to death. These bishops urged that more time be given prior to Terri’s imposed death by starvation so that “greater certainty as to her true condition” could be reached.

How much more certainty does one need that a living, breathing human being will die if he or she is denied access to food and water? The burden of proof in Terri’s case must ultimately be placed squarely on the shoulders of those who, for whatever reason, have chosen to cautiously stand aside and allow the courts to wield their power, even if the result will be the death of an innocent human being who never had the opportunity to defend herself. What crime did Terri Schiavo commit, I would ask the bishops that drove them into equivocating about whether or not she had a right to life?

Americans who care about this young woman have mounted campaigns to pressure Gov. Bush into doing all he can to save Terri’s life. Others have stepped to the forefront and applauded Florida state lawmakers who, after nearly six full days had passed in which Terri was denied nutrition, approved legislation to stop the starvation from continuing. Still others have offered legal opinions providing the governor with ammunition and exposing the reality of the situation: Terri Schiavo was being executed, pure and simple.

Yet nowhere in this flurry of last minute, desperate activity, do we find the Florida Catholic Conference. There has been a number prayer vigils held outside the hospice where Terri resides. To our knowledge, not one bishop has attended. There have been numerous public demonstrations of support for Terri’s parents, who are courageously doing all they can to defend their daughter’s right to life as her husband, her legal guardian, continues his quest to see that her food and water is denied. Not one bishop has offered Terri’s parents his public support. There is a courageous priest who has tried to provide Terri with Holy Communion. His efforts were thwarted by police officers who banned him from giving the Eucharist to Terri. As far as we can tell, not one bishop spoke out at such an outrage or applauded the commitment of this priest to be a true shepherd for Terri in what appeared to be her final days.

As the moments continued to pass, and the very life ebbed out of this lovely young woman at the center of this storm of controversy, one could only wonder what it really means to be innocent until proven guilty. To my mind, as I reflect on the burden of proof that never evolved prior to Terri’s death sentence, it occurs to me that some day, the most important Judge of all will have to deal with certain people who were aware of the travesty but chose to avoid a controversy because “difficult cases” are a bother. At that time, He will have amassed a burden of proof with regard to their culpability in the case of Terri Schiavo. In His court, justice will be done.

[Normally a Lurker]

I hope you have a Living Will to that effect. (Laz)

Then please, clearly state your wishes in writing so that no one will have to debate this over you. I assure you, if your wishes were unknown as Terri's are I would fight to keep you alive too. (PleaseNoMore)

I do have a living will, but I think it's a shame that someone who doesn't would be made to suffer for many, many years as a penality for failing to put such wishes in writing.

Wouldn't it make as much sense to say that some who wants to live in such horrible circumsrances should put that desire in writing?

The bottom line issue is whether to err on the side of a forced long-term suffering of not. I would choose not . . . absent a persons expressed desire to endure such suffering in such circumstances.

And, BTW this is ignoring that not just her husband, but others (apparently) testified that Terri had expressed such wishes.

[PleaseNoMore]

It was a stand alone post. Nothing out of context about it.

[Tax-chick]

You seem to be implying that anything liberals are involved in is a terrible mess :-).

[PleaseNoMore]

The others who testified were Schiavo's brother and sister (inlaw??). Hmmm...nothing from her family or friends.

[JustPiper]

Bump EV!

[Normally a Lurker]

Why do you continue to ignore my other posts and keeping taking this one out of the overall context?

You are effectively putting words in my mouth that I never said. I think my point is abundently clear, and if you disagree with my central point, fine.

[Bluebird Singing]

From Mosby's Medical, Nursing, and Allied Health Dictionary:

unconscious: unaware of the surrounding environment; insensible; incapable of responding to sensory stimuli

coma: a state of profound unconsciousness, characterized by the absence of spontaneous eye openings, response to painful stimuli, and vocalization. The person cannot be aroused.

vegetative state: a physical condition in which a previously comatose patient appears to be awake but is unable to communicate or respond to stimuli. The eyes may be open but because of senile brain disease, cerebral arteriosclerosis, or injury to the cerebral cortex the patient remains immobile and must be fed and toileted.

According to all three of these definitions, the person is unable to respond to stimuli. Terri Schiavo responds to stimuli.

[Normally a Lurker]

It was a stand alone post. Nothing out of context about it.

And this statement by you is completely meaningless in and of itself, unless I read it in the context of your prior posts. I could ignore those posts, and say that you are just babbling incoherently in that latest post.

Why do you keep insisting on do that with my post?

[sirchtruth]

God would have let her die 15 years ago - it's people like you who have interjected their wishes for his - and hers.

God gave us modern medicine, what do propose we do with it, put it on the shelf?

Do you know what this woman's wishes are because you would be the first one on the face of the planet?! BTW, there is a story that she indicated or expressed that the feeding tube NOT be removed...

Yes, my HOPE is that she lives, maybe to teach us something about selfish people who only want to rid her, and people like her from this world for their own selfish, ignorant, evil desire.

[Normally a Lurker]

Terri Schiavo responds to stimuli.

Opinion or fact?

Various doctors say that she simply has uncontollable reflex reactions. How do tou know that they are incorrect in their assessments?

[Bluebird Singing]

Various other doctors refute Michael Schiavo and his attorney's hand picked doctors. How do you know they are incorrect in their assessments?

[PleaseNoMore]

No, those are your words, posted by your hands. I didn't place them in your mouth. You answered that you drew the line at feeding tubes if used for more than a few days in reponse to an inquiry made unto you concerning artificial means. What were you saying if not that you disagreed with the use of feeding tubes if used for more than a few days? WHAT exactly IS your point in regards to that statement in your post #117 specifically? Clarify sufficiently and I will apologize but DO NOT make statements that you aren't ready to stand by. I am a woman and I am a better man than that. I stand by what I say and, if wrong, will apologize for saying them.

[afraidfortherepublic]

The nurse's affidavit that you posted, if true, is positively outrageous. I have no reason to disbelieve it, except that I cannot understand why this situation hasn't attracted the attention of the police, i fthi snurse is telling the truth. I'm absolutely appalled and convinced that Terri (and perhaps this nurse, as well) are in mortal danger. Somebody has got to get this patient out of this hospice that seems to be controlled by the ex-husband and his attorney and to a safe haven where where can receive proper treatment and comfort for however long she has left on this earth.

This situation is urgent.

[PeyersPatches]

"One can only imagine the condition Terri would be in if she had been the recipient of $750,000 worth of rehab therapy!!!!! "

Excellent point. Michael denies her any rehab therapy and uses her worsening condition as the reason she needs to be killed off. I am still appalled by the number of people who pole vault right past the facts of the case and side with Michael so eager to kill her.

He needs her to be silenced forever - we need to demand to know why.

[afraidfortherepublic]

If 15 years is not enough time - do you propose that I/she be artifically sustained for eternity?

She was supposed to be receiving therapy during that 15 years and her husband blocked it. How do we know what progress ;she might have made if she'd had the help that he promised the court he would give?

My grandson is autistic and receives speech and occupational therapy. When the school, or the state, withholds it, his condition deteriorates markedly.

[Normally a Lurker]

Ok, I give up, you're right - I really meant that all the hundreds of thousands of people you refer to should be killed. And, I didn't mean any of the associated things that I said in my various previous and later posts.< / sarcasim >.

Now, do you feel vindicated?

[PleaseNoMore]

No, not vindicated. I feel as if I have just corresponded with someone who cannot clarify himself. Perhaps because he doesn't really know what his convictions are.

[Normally a Lurker]

OK, but that cuts both ways. None of us here knowns for sure, but that doesn't stop many of those here from being 100% sure that THEY are right.

And if anyone mentions that various judges have reviewed all of the relevant evidence and reached the same conclusion, all of a sudden many here dismiss the judges as just being just a horrible part of some massive conspiracy.

Apparently no one is considered to be objective here, unless they agree with those posting here. Anyone else is simply considered to be an evil wrong doer.

[Normally a Lurker]

Amazing.

Do you really still fail to understand what I consider to be the point here?

What "clarification" do you need?

[Avoiding_Sulla]

Alerting all Pro-life FReepers. Have you caught on yet? I am rushing this to post before the thread deterioriates,

Please don't be too hard on NL. Just in case you haven't noticed yet, he's helping you set up your arguments against the deathists by immitating their tactics. I think we owe him or her a debt of gratitude.

Yes, his statements are nasty about you and your motives all while acknowledging no bad motives against Michael and his lawyers. But what could Terri-life advocates expect in court against Terri-death advocates? That Michael will end up doing what all Perry Mason bad guys do in the last 5 minutes? Not blooming likely.

Starting with NL's number 63, we have some very fine examples of our opponent running free and loose with mixing your words with his own, and then twisting them against you.

Let's start.

We generally don't try and sustain pets because we don't have the same moral paradigm for them as for humans. We just don't employ the same traditional efforts to save an animal from death as we do humans (when thinking clearly).

So, in #63, we encounter the first error of NL. He writes as if a majority can be assumed to have replaced our moral code to coincide with that of Professor Peter Singer's at Princeton U -- that animal and human lives should be treated as equivalent.

I bet you didn't sign on to that, but nobody called him on the assumption.

Animals are humanely put down, but our TRADITIONAL moral code does not permit us to do that to fellow human beings.

I have catalogued how the "Progressives" have been trying incrementally to change our principal paradigm, without your consent, by trying to slip past your awareness, and by confusing issues (as their agents and fans are doing in this case), for quite some time.

That's what our efforts are all about in this case -- PREVENTING THE NEXT STEP in the incremental retreat from our cultural linchpin: PROTECTING INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE.