I repeat, this is not a euthanasia case.
This is not a situation where well-intentioned people are trying to figure out what to do with Terri -- should she live or should she die. Would I want to live or would I want to die.
Scrap all of that. It's a lie. Save it for a real euthanasia case.
Terri Schiavo is about an individual who, lacking a Living Will or Durable Power of Attorney, nonetheless expressed a verbal desire that if it came to be, she would not want to live in a brain damaged state by artificial means. That's it. Pure and simple.
Many arguments followed. Some said Terri is not in a PVS (Persistent Vegetative State). Some argued that a feeding tube is not "artificial means". Some said that she can swallow on her own and doesn't need the feeding tube. Others said that a verbal wish doesn't count. Some said the people who heard that wish are lying. On and on.
Michael, her husband, took the whole thing to Judge Greer in 1998 and said (in effect), "Here. You sort it out".
In January, 2000, Judge Greer held a hearing to determine what Terri wanted. According to Florida law, an oral wish is acceptable, but the judge is charged with finding "clear and convincing" evidence as to the patient's wishes.
In February, 2000, Judge Greer found that Terri would not have wanted to live the way she was living, and ordered the feeding tube removed.
Terri's cerebral cortex is gone. She feels no pain. She is not conscious, even when she's "awake".
This was Terri's wish. Not Michael's. Not Judge Greer's. If she had placed this wish in writing, we never would have heard of Terri Schiavo because she would have died years ago.
Did someone prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Terri wanted to be put down if she ever became severely disabled? ... I doidn't think so, yet that is the standard required when an execution sentence is to be carried out.
Is a machine considered a feeding tube?
Moreover, since her desires were not in writing, and the fact that her husband according to friends and family hadn't any idea what Terri's desires were until 7 years after she was disabled doesn't make his statements very convincing added to the fact that the judge used only the Schiavo family's statements and threw out the others that were at odds with theirs.
In real life we change our minds daily, sometimes hourly, sometimes monthly, who knows? It's the way humans are.
In real life some of us joke and make lots of careless remarks about quality of life without seriously considering the consequences of those off hand remarks.
Should a young person be held to a remark such as supposedly Terri made as had she been able to grow and mature with time may have changed her mind and thought more on the details of quality of life?
These perhaps are things a jury would examine. Real life situations and experience. I see that most people would not want to live as Terri had, but do we actually know how Terri lived? We shuld not place ourselves in her place? How can we? She is Terri, you are you and I am me.
What is PVS and the standards to become labelled such? I heard that it is a very rigorous set of standards to meet?
Dr. Cranford said she was, others said she wasn't. Why is Cranford's word carry greater weight and value over others of same qualifications, but may not be doctor's who champion euthanasia, as Cranford clearly does?
With all of the questions and doubts surrounding Terri's wishes, medical condition, mixed with our own perceptions and knowledge, and Terri's blood family willing and desiring to take care of their beloved daughter and sister, where there is life, what was the harm in keeping her alive if all she needed was food, water and perhaps more medical attention than was given to her.
Furthermore, how can anyone have been placed legally in a hospice facility for 5 years which was designed to be for only a stay of 6 months or less for the terminally ill? Terri was not terminally ill.
Also, robertpaulsen, when you say "this is not a euthanasia case" and if I were on a jury I'd clearly agree it was not, for what happened the doctors and judges starved her to death, otherwise she'd still be living, her parents would be seeing her. Her husband could go and marry his mistress, give his children his name, maybe he wouldn't get the $2 million from CBS for the movie rights, and more for book rights, public appearances, but what's all that to a man who said he loves her.
Darn, it's just too bad that many young people think they are invincible, say flippant remarks, puts nothing in writing then if something should come their way that incapacitates them, then a moral conflict arises between the families, then it goes to a judge, the judge then decides in favor of death by starvation, leaving the country divided and at odds with pro-death and pro-life proponents.
What a mess.
robertpaulsen, sorry to be venting and wandering. I thank you for your kind, thoughtfully logical and reflective posts.
This was a clear cut EUTHANASIA case. Many of the main characters are virulent proponents of EUTHANASIA (look up Hemlock society and Felos for instance). You have repeated so many LIES. You have some motive for your position or you would be more reasonable, especially in making such outright false statements as
"Terri's cerebral cortex is gone. She feels no pain. She is not conscious, even when she's "awake"."
If Terri felt no pain then they would not have had to give her medication for her menstruals, if Terri felt no pain they would not have had to use MORPHINE when they murdered her by starvation/dehydration.
As far as spouting the kangaroo court record.... figures lie and liars figure.