Replies

There was no substantive due process, there was nothing more than some contested hearsay evidence by an estranged husband who had a personal interest in seeing her dead; and there was no trial de novo.

You haven't even addressed the fact that Terri's estranged husband, Michael Schiavo, who abandoned her maritally and lived in open adultery with another woman, with whom he established a household and had two children, should still have been considered, as husband, fit to be Terri's "guardian" -- (or do you think bigamy/adultery, destroying her wedding and engsagement rings, and disposing of all of her personal property, doesn't constitute marital abandonment and doesn't vitiate his claim in the least?)---

Nor have you addressed the fact that Michael swore to devote a substantial financial settlement to Terri's therapy, and THEN (after he got the money) remembered, several YEARS after her collapse, that, oops, oh yeah, she said she'd rather be dead---

Nor have you explained how she could have had "substantive due process" when she wasn't even allowed to have a MRI or PET scan which could have showed the anatomy of her brain BEFORE she was dehydrated for 14 days---

If you would review the shameful case history of Terri Schiavo's situation and continue to support the courts, then I am --- carefully considering my word choice here ---astounded at the atrophy of your sense of justice.

Hon, all you've done is thrown out allegations and made personal attacks about the character of Terri's husband. Look at your own words...."estranged husband". That is not a fact, that is YOU inserting your feeeeeelings into a debate that is quite frankly, none of your business. You need to let this go. Multiple witnesses testified that Terri stated she wouldn't want to live her life in a PVS state.

I am also astounded...at your total belief in the lies and distortions propagated by the Shindlers and their mindless band of myrmidons. You're so emotionally involved in this case, you can't see what is really going on.