From the court transcript:
"... and to Joan Schiavo following a television movie in which a man following an accident was in a coma to the effect that she wanted it stated in her will that she would want the tubes and everything taken out if that happened to her are likewise reflective of this intent."
Following the movie ... wanted it stated in her will ... tubes and everything. Just a little more than "no tubes for me" while picking up the empty chip bowl, Mr. Leo.
Second, this was but one of five (5) comments that Terri made regarding not wanting to live that way. The judge was certainly convinced.
Actually, the judge claimed that he had "clear and convincing" evidence as to Terri's wishes, thereby meeting the State of Florida standard.
Affirmed by the Second District Court of Appeals in an almost de-novo review of the case and the FSC in an appeal.
The 2nd District in their ruling wrote...
The testimony in this case establishes that Theresa was very young and very healthy when this tragedy struck. Like many young people without children, she had not prepared a will, much less a living will. She had been raised in the Catholic faith, but did not regularly attend mass or have a religious advisor who could assist the court in weighing her religious attitudes about life-support methods. Her statements to her friends and family about the dying process were few and they were oral. Nevertheless, those statements, along with other evidence about Theresa, gave the trial court a sufficient basis to make this decision for her.
In the final analysis, the difficult question that faced the trial court was whether Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, not after a few weeks in a coma, but after ten years in a persistent vegetative state that has robbed her of most of her cerebrum and all but the most instinctive of neurological functions, with no hope of a medical cure but with sufficient money and strength of body to live indefinitely, would choose to continue the constant nursing care and the supporting tubes in hopes that a miracle would somehow recreate her missing brain tissue, or whether she would wish to permit a natural death process to take its course and for her family members and loved ones to be free to continue their lives. After due consideration, we conclude that the trial judge had clear and convincing evidence to answer this question as he did.
Second, the case she supposedly commented upon to Joan Schiavo was significantly different from her own situation years later. For one thing, she was not in a coma. Her condition was either Very Low Consciousness or PVS, neither of which was ruled out by the autopsy.
She was also not on wires, monitors and ventilators, was not being "kept alive by machines." She was young (41), strong, not in pain, and not terminal. All she needed was ordinary care: assisted nutrition/hydration. So if she expressed the view attested by some, that she would want to "be allowed to die a natural death," she was not asking to be starved/dehydrated. Neither you, nor I, nor any judge or panel of judges in the world can deny fluids to a dependent and disabled person and call their resulting demise a "natural death."
Third, the judge's decision that there was "clear and convincing" evidence of Terri's desire to be dehydrated to death, obviously was not clear and convincing to many people who knew Terri. It was not even "clear and convincing" to Michael Schiavo until after he received --- from a medical malpractice settlement --- a substantial amount of money which he swore he would use for his dabled wife's long-term care!
Not only her parents, but her brother and sister, half a dozen nurses, lawyers, clergy, could have testified ---- if he she's had a trial de novo --- that she exhibited a will to live.
Fourth, it is outrageous that a county probate judge can order the death of any citizen who has not been convicted of a crime. You realize of course, that in the end this was done on a court order. Technically, it wasn't even Michael Schiavo's decision in the end. It was an actual court order by Judge Greer.
This was a "first." And a precedent: one that must not be allowed to stand.