The court, in 1997 when Michael announced he was'engaged' should have immediately conducted a guardianship hearing and transfered Terri to State guardianship. Because of this failure, we are in the present situation.
Questions to consider:
(1) Why did Michael choose to 'ignore' her wishes for nearly 7 years until 1997 when he announced he was'engaged' to Jodi Centonze and 'suddenly' remembered the conversation about life support with Terri from years before?
Michael Schiavo answer would probably rationalize that it took that long before he realized there was 'no hope for recovery...'
(2) However, the 1992 malpractice suit for $20 million was based on the premise/conclusion that Terri would NOT recover and she would require constant medical care for the remainder of her life estimated by Michael Shiavo and his laywers to be 51 years(which is the normal life expectancey)...Where were her WISHES at that time?
(3) The court, in 1997 when Michael announced he was'engaged' should have immediately conducted a guardianship hearing and transfered Terri to State guardianship, at a minimum because of the obvious conflict of interest on the part of Michael Shiavo.
The court system failed to act at that point, and that is a major factor on why we are at the point we are today.
Guardianship, by law and practice, is determined to be given to that person who is most heavily 'biased' in favor of the disabled person. Under most conditions this would be the spouse. However, most prudent courts, if during the guardianship period, the appointed guardian by circumstances or accident tilts the 'bias' away from the interest of the person so guarded, would conduct an immediate review, and at a minimum, transfer guardianship to the appropriate State agency.
An additional thought, as I presented it to my class at the university yesterday and I posed the question to the students:
If Terri Schiavo's medical condition, feeding tube et al, was exactly the same as it is, age 25, etc. with the single exception that she was not 'mentally' disabled but had all other functions; and she expressed a desire to have the feeding tube removed and wanted to die, what would we do?
Of course the answer is clear, she would not be allowed to make that 'choice' and would be sent for counselling, etc.
Van & Katherine Jenerette
North Myrtle Beach, SC Professor, Political Science, SCC Associate, Sociology, Coastal Carolina University, South Carolina
Michael Schiavo Appointed Terri’s Guardian
On June 18, 1990, after a conducted investigation declaring Terri incapacitated, a hearing was held in a St. Petersburg courtroom appointing Michael Schiavo as Terri’s legal guardian.
The St. Petersburg court files state that Terri’s parents were notified by mail of these events, including the hearing, and had no objections to Michael Schiavo being appointed Terri’s guardian.
Terri’s parents emphatically state that they did not know of the investigation concluding that Terri was incapacitated, or the subsequent court hearing and were never notified.
Additionally, there is no evidence of any documentation in Terri's legal case files verifying that Terri’s parents supported Michael Schiavo's guardianship appointment, other than a reference that Terri's parents were in agreement.
In is important to note, during this 1990 time frame, Terri’s parents were in daily contact with Michael Schiavo, and nothing was ever mentioned regarding these court proceedings by Michael Schiavo or his attorney.
The entire legal Guardianship transaction was handled by attorney Daniel Grieco.
This.. http://www.zimp.org/stuff/..information has been archived in the court’s microfiche files, but was only recently discovered, in June 2004, by Terri’s family.