Terri is given food and water through tubes. Is disconnecting a feeding tube the same as ending life support?
Yes, under Florida law, which governs the ability of each person to determine, or to appoint someone to determine, whether each of us should receive what the Legislature terms "life-prolonging medical procedures." The Legislature has explained:
The Legislature recognizes that for some the administration of life-prolonging medical procedures may result in only a precarious and burdensome existence. In order to ensure that the rights and intentions of a person may be respected even after he or she is no longer able to participate actively in decisions concerning himself or herself, and to encourage communication among such patient, his or her family, and his or her physician, the Legislature declares that the laws of this state recognize the right of a competent adult to make an advance directive instructing his or her physician to provide, withhold, or withdraw life-prolonging procedures, or to designate another to make the treatment decision for him or her in the event that such person should become incapacitated and unable to personally direct his or her medical care.
§ 765.102(3), Florida Statutes.
The Legislature has also defined what is a "life-prolonging procedure":
"Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.
§ 765.101(10), Florida Statutes (italics added by me).
Why did Terri’s husband get to make the decision about whether she should live or die?
Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life-prolonging measures for Terri.
As Terri's husband, Michael has been her guardian and her surrogate decision-maker. By 1998, though -- eight years after the trauma that produced Terri's situation -- Michael and Terri's parents disagreed over the proper course for her.
Rather than make the decision himself, Michael followed a procedure permitted by Florida courts by which a surrogate such as Michael can petition a court, asking the court to act as the ward's surrogate and determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael did this, and based on statements Terri made to him and others, he took the position that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The Schindlers took the position that Terri would continue life-prolonging measures. Under this procedure, the trial court becomes the surrogate decision-maker, and that is what happened in this case.
The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures.
The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures.
They still used heresay, and when Terri supposedly expressed the death wish, G tube nutritional feedings were not legally classified as life support. So the rules as she would have known it changed.
Anyway this is why I will never go to Florida.
you know what - your statements have many holes.
Also, Terri's statement was made to MS and others? Why didn't you include who the 'others' are?
Her statement was "supposedly" said to MS and others. And the others are?....his brother and sister-in-law. A little bit too tidy for me when an innocent life hung in the balance.
You know what? I choose NOT to believe MS and what he says he supposedly heard. Is that all right with you? Just for starters, for some reason, 'when is the bitch going to die' doesn't sit right with me.
Instead of rehashing any more w/you, I will continue reading post #282. No hard feelings, I hope. I think I may find it to be more credible than your 'write up' all tied up nicely with omissions for a cause. I can sit in my easy chair and watch CNN if I want that.
You wrote: "As Terri's husband, Michael has been her guardian and her surrogate decision-maker. By 1998, though -- eight years after the trauma that produced Terri's situation -- Michael and Terri's parents disagreed over the proper course for her." It is interesting that you selectively ignore the (at least) five years of forced neglect (that's abuse) he subjected Terri to leading up to the 1998 time period you cite. Says a lot about your chosen perspective and you have many allies on these threads who have made like choice to ignore the realities in favor of defending a wrong. [The forced neglect continued for the remainder of her life, while her then husband tried, using Terri's rehab therapy monies for lawyers rather than even minimal therapy, to get her put down so he 'could move on with his life'.] That's your cue to cite the lack of court rulings regarding abuse, a tactic that has become almost laughable in its absurdity given the reality of the behavior by Michael and the protection from investigation Greer afforded to him ...