Why Schiavo's Parents Didn't Have a Case

latimes.com ^ | March 25, 2005 | Andrew Cohen

[Destro]

March 25, 2005

COMMENTARY
Why Schiavo's Parents Didn't Have a Case

By Andrew Cohen, Andrew Cohen is CBS News' legal analyst.

Terri Schiavo's parents did not lose their federal case because they didn't try hard enough. They didn't lose their case because everyone conspired against them. They didn't lose it because Congress ticked off the judiciary over the weekend with its over-the-top custom-made legislation. They didn't lose it for lack of money or because they failed to file a court paper on time. They didn't lose it because the laws are unfair or because bureaucrats sometimes can be arbitrary and capricious.

The Schindlers lost their case and their cause — and soon probably their daughter — because in the end they were making claims the legal system has never been able or willing to recognize. They lost because they long ago ran out of good arguments to make — those arguments having been reasonably rejected by state judge after judge — and thus were left with only lame ones. And they lost because in every case someone has to win and someone has to lose. That's the way it works in our system of government. It isn't pretty, and sometimes it's unfair. But it's reality.

Especially during this final round of review, orchestrated by Congress' extraordinary attempt at a "do-over" for the couple, Schiavo's parents lost appeal after appeal specifically because they were asking the federal courts to declare that their constitutional rights had been violated by the Florida state court rulings in the case. They were arguing, in other words, thanks in part to their custom-made congressional legislation, that the federal Constitution gave them the right as losers in state court to get a new, full-blown trial in federal court.

[BushCountry]

There is something completely wrong with Florida state law amd the flipping judges if it recognizes a husband who possibly (the evidence I heard leans this way):

1. Tried to kill her and was responsible for her the state she is in (some of the evidence that points to this is creepy).
2. They were very close to a divorce at the time.
3. Consistanly refused basic medical care for her throughout and threaten to fire anyone who dared tried to treat her.
4. Spent 400,000 of her settlement money on schooling.
5. Blown 600,000 of her therapy money on living large.
6. Has a common law wife and two childern.
7. Is her husband for the sole purpose of killing her.
8. Everytime she was sick called the hosipital hoping that she was going to die and enjoyed any discomfort she was in.

Hell before the accident they were not a happy couple and were close to seperation and divorce. They were constantly fighting and had a major blowout the day of the incident.

Nothing personal when I look at the pictures of him at the time, he kind of looks creepy (I am not the only who feels this way), kinda cold-blooded.

The statement that "once" she said that she didn't want to live by artificial means doesn't in my book give the State of Florida the right to kill her over her parents wishes. The husband should not be recognized as her husband!

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

You argue legalisms. No system without a moral foundation can last long. A body of law built to allow this barbarism is wrong and should be completely dismantled by a moral society.

There were bodies of laws created during the Third Reich and the Soviet Union. They were airtight laws regarding the treatment of some people AND THEY WERE WRONG because they were immoral. You should note those systems are now dismantled because they were founded upon immoral principles that could not be sustained.

[Destro]

Yup - he comes across as a scum bag to me - but Florida Law is what it is on this case - I can't see how the Judge could have wiggled out of granting him proxy status. In the news they keep calling him guardian but he is by the reading of the law the defacto proxy.

[Mr Rogers]

All

Recommend watching "Judgment at Nuremberg".

[HiTech RedNeck]

Note that the star doctor on the court appointed medical team was Dr. Cranford -- Dr. Humane Death as he calls his own self. I would scarcely expect him to advocate eyedropper feeding.

[HiTech RedNeck]

What I object to is people saying that she can as of right now (just before the tube was pulled) swallow and chew food. That is a falsehood.

She could swallow a flow comparable to her saliva flow. That's a good liter or more per day.

[Diogenesis]

. While at FSU, [Judgenfuhrer and Murderer]Greer was a housemate of future Doors lead singer Jim Morrison

HEALTHFUL DRINKS AND WARM MEALS SINCE THE ORDER-TO-MURDER-AN-INVALID BY JUDGE GREER
Murderer-At-Will Judge Greer 35
......................... Terri Shiavo 0
.......................... Lee Malvo 25
.......................... Scott Peterson 24

[Destro]

You argue legalisms. Correct and thank you for saying that.

I have been trying to get people to focus on the law and not the actions of the court which can not go beyond the law. In this sad case the law is what created this court decision.

The proper law would have had a review of her condition that would satisy everyone with little doubt as to if she was in a PVS or not.

PS: This issue falls into 2 camps - those that think her life support should remain because she is not in a PVS (the majority it seems) and those that are against her life support ending even if she is in a PVS - no matter what state she is in. Which one are you?

[Wonder Warthog]

"In capital cases, for example, the law requires a federal review of a state court death penalty conviction. In such cases, the government is seeking to kill someone on behalf of the people. In the Schiavo case, a private guardian (a husband) was seeking permission to fulfill his wife's wishes, as determined by the state court of Florida. Yes, there is a difference, one that has been recognized in law and tradition."

That argument will NOT fly, because in Schiavo's case, there was ALSO a law---passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. It only applied to one person, but it IS a law. It is well past time to reign in the "Men in Black".

[BushCountry]

One more thing, Judge Greer accepted campaign contributions for the lawyer trying to kill her and never once visited her in person. Did not have the balls to face the person he was sentencing to death. Almost, every other judge would have.

[HiTech RedNeck]

In this sad case the law is what created this court decision.

No, in this sad case it is the route the judge chose to take through the law that created this judicial starvation murder. He had enough latitude in several places that he could have spared Terri.

[jwpjr]

re: Looks liek he held them up to the letter

And that's what court after court, judge after judge has ruled on. But I don't see that what's happening now, even though it's correct to the letter of the law, that it serves the spirit of the law. No law is ever going to cover every possible situation and when the occasional unique situation comes along I would want the judge(s) to consider the spirit of the law. This has never been done in this case.

In my mind the parents dropped the ball when they failed to make an issue of the care he was dictating in his capacity as her guardian. The basis of the malpractice suit in which he prevailed was that she would require longterm rehabilitative care. In fact, the exact opposite was done. He gave specific orders that she was to receive absolutely no care that could be considered rehab. There is ample testimony that his actions as her guardian have been neglectful and abusive.

Terri is a Catholic. In the absence of clearly communicated directions from her if she were to be in her current condition I would expect the court to order treatment in accordance with the teachings of her faith. The Catholic church does not condone starving a person to death.

[HiTech RedNeck]

PS: This issue falls into 2 camps - those that think her life support should remain because she is not in a PVS (the majority it seems) and those that are against her life support ending even if she is in a PVS - no matter what state she is in. Which one are you?

How about a third camp which is "she might not be in a PVS but we need to do a h*ll of a lot more than Michael ever did or authorized to be sure, including a lot of therapy."

[txradioguy]

Good point. Why hasn't the judge gone to the hospice to see Terri himself? It's not like he'd be doing something unprescendented by doing that.

[BushCountry]

You know what is not funny, it has been said that when the lawyer for Terri goes to a hearing, he stands basically alone. In the effort to kill her, the other side brings in 20 or 30 high power lawyers. Who are all the interests financing the the crowd that wants to kill her? Curious...

[american colleen]

Why they haven't taken this angle is beyond me.

Probably like all court cases, it comes down to who had the better lawyers.

[Destro]

You are again incorrect - he was the HUSBAND's doctor not the court's expery.

Doctors spar on degree of Schiavo's awareness; sharp words by some

[HiTech RedNeck]

I'd think Scientology would be fairly high on the list. Their theology is not kind to the disabled.

ACLU is another big player.

[Destro]

He had a court appointed independent medical team for that. Neither the judge nor you or I as layman can tell by looking as it was a car accident scene or something.

[txradioguy]

Judges frequently go to the scene of a crim to get a better idea of what the lawyers are talkinag bout. Hell they sometimes conduct the days business in a case from the scene of where the even ocurred.

Are you telling me this judge shouldn't have done the same thing in such an important high profile case?