Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: dennisw
How the Courts Failed Terri Schiavo

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 that need to be immediately considered:

(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?

Respondent answer would most likely rationalize that it took that long before Michael Schiavo 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.

(4) 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 - www.jenerette.com

2 posted on 03/26/2005 5:18:26 AM PST by kjenerette (Jenerette for Senate - www.jenerette.com - U.S. Army Desert Storm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: kjenerette

As another poster said on another thread, All Hell King George (Greer).


3 posted on 03/26/2005 5:21:16 AM PST by Ben Chad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: kjenerette

This guy Mike Schiavo stinks to high Heaven!


5 posted on 03/26/2005 5:23:24 AM PST by razzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: kjenerette
'suddenly' remembered the conversation about life support with Terri from years before?

And of course the only people on the planet that ever allegedly heard Terri say she would want to die are Schiavo, his brother and his sister. But then, the brother and sister didn't remember those conversations till 7 years later either. Must be some kind of genetic flaw in the Schiavo gene pool.

10 posted on 03/26/2005 5:38:03 AM PST by PistolPaknMama (Will work for cool tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: kjenerette
If Terri Schiavo would have murdered someone, TWELVE judges (jurors), not just one, would have to concur to put her to death--and the Governor still could pardon her. But the Courts have found a way to let one corrupt, bankrolled judge have the final say in a matter of life and death. Shouldn't we require that civil suits, where no value is in controversy, receive at minimum a jury trial? (Yes, I mean questions of life and death, questions of the viewing of Nativity scenes, and all other sort of nonsense about which judges routinely issue even more nonsensical decrees.)
28 posted on 03/26/2005 7:51:12 AM PST by dufekin (United States of America: a judicial tyranny, not a federal republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson