Governor to close Schiavo inquiry [State attorney to Jeb: Michael S did not cause wife's collapse.]

St Petersburg Times ^ | July 8, 2005 | DAVID KARP and CHRIS TISCHDAVID KARP and CHRIS TISCH

[summer]

LARGO - In what could be a final chapter in the legal saga of Terri Schiavo, Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney Bernie McCabe says he could find no evidence that Michael Schiavo caused his wife's collapse 15 years ago.

In a June 30 letter to Gov. Jeb Bush, McCabe suggested ending the state's inquiry into the case.

Bush responded Thursday in a two-sentence letter to McCabe: "Based on your conclusions, I will follow your recommendation that the inquiry by the state be closed."

Bush asked McCabe last month to investigate Schiavo's collapse on the morning of Feb. 25, 1990. He cited questions left unanswered by an autopsy and inconsistent statements from Michael Schiavo about the time he found his wife on the floor of their apartment.

McCabe appointed two of his most seasoned prosecutors to review the evidence. They found nothing to indicate Michael Schiavo hurt his wife....

[Gondring]

huh?
You have a right to live, but not a presumption...just like there's a right to die but no presumption of that preference.

[summer]

(The original subtitle was "The investigating state attorney tells Bush he found Michael Schiavo did not cause his wife's collapse.").

Thanks for posting the above for people. My bracketed title said exactly what the article title said, except I shortened it somewhat to fit in the space on the posting form.

[summer]

Re your post #110 - Thanks for taking the time to post the link and info.

[RS]

"It's an issue of WHO SHOULD BE THE GUARDIAN RIGHT NOW - when ONE spouse can NOT seek a divorce. That's when a law should ALLOW parents to step in and BECOME the guardian, if the parents want to care for an adult child ..."

When you stop dancing around it, all you really want to do is REMOVE from a marriage the right of a spouse to make decisions for the incapacitated one and turn that decision over to the govenment, correct ?

[summer]

Joe, re your post #111. That was very interesting. Thanks for your post.

[summer]

turn that decision over to the govenment, correct ?

Uh, I don't know how you made the leap from PARENTS -- which is what I have repeatedly said - to "GOVERNMENT" -- which is what you said.

PARENTS are the ones I am talking about. Reread all my posts on this thread, and you'll see. Or quote me a post where I said what you claim (because there is no such post).

[Earthdweller]

"You have a right to live, but not a presumption...just like there's a right to die but no presumption of that preference."

Apparently there is not going to be a presumption that I would want to live now if the AMA blocks up coming state legislation.

...the American Medical Association [adopted] policy opposing any legislation that presumes patients would want life-sustaining treatment unless it is clear that they would not.

The AMA is going left people.

[summer]

The fact is, Jeb Bush had it within his power to get Terri Schiavo OUT of that execution center (aka 'hospice'), if need be by calling up the damn Florida National Guard

On the grounds that...what? Jeb Bush has legal guardianship? Not according to the courts. The state has legal guardianship? Not according to the courts.

Her husband had legal guardianship.

Do you expect a governoror the state to remove someone from a place when you have legal guardianship of that person? And the courts say you do?

I hate to break this news to you, but Gov Jeb Bush, as good as he is, is not God. Gov Bush is subject to the laws of the State of Florida, like it or not.

That's why my post #1 concerned changing the law. No man is above the law. But sometimes, perhaps, we need a new law.

[Earthdweller]

I think Jeb messed up by not calculating the end results but his motives were good. JMHO

[spunkets]

Re: "the Schindlers admitted that they would have disregarded Mrs. Schiavo's wishes even if they were known in writing."

"I've never heard that before. Has anyone else heard that before now?

The statement is correct. There was a Father Murphy involved in the case and he made the Schindler's thoughts known to the court. He considered the mother's thoughts on the "requirement" to provide unlimited med treatment bizarre and unhealthy.

Thanks for the update.

[Earthdweller]

I think it was a very dumb mistake on the part of the Schindler's to make those statements. I don't think they were too bright (sorry) but all they cared about was saving their daughter and they didn't think things through.

[summer]

I admire your attempt to find a solution for the future (that parents be allowed to sue for divorce.) ...

My case may be the minority, but I can only imagine the horror of parents suing for divorce so that they can end their child's life.

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

I think you raise an interesting point, but I also think you have to remember: I am only suggesting that in the event there is no written directive, AND, as another poster said, and I now agree -- on grounds already recognized for divorce.

Now, true, my own assumption would be: the parents are taking these actions to care for their child. But, your point is valid, too, in that once parents have guardianship, they would do what they think best (again, in circumstances where there are no written directions, and grounds for divorce exist).

Parents and families make these difficult decisions each day, in private, about what is best to do when there are no written directives.

So my guess is what you have contemplated is probably already going on somewhere, right now -- but you are unaware of it in those families, since it is a highly personal and private decision in those circumstances. (It's not splashed in the newspapers each day like the Terri S case.)

Nevertheless, I still think there is value in my proposal, as modified by the poster who specified existing, legally recognized grounds for divorce, because at least that law would uphold the rights of a married, incapacitated person who is being abandoned or abused by a spouse, or, certainly in Terri's case, has a husband who is now in a new family.

If someone wants to be in a new family, and committs adultery, and now want two wives, then, we are talking about something else illegal in this country, poligamy. This was something I really didn't understand the courts overlookking in this matter. I realize Michael S did not marry his live in love and the mother of his kids, but, obviously she is not just his "friend" -- he had a new life. He should have voluntarily let Terri's parents take over her guardianship, but he didn't. And the parents suffered terribly in this situation, when they all they wanted to do was care for her -- a woman they themselves brought into this world. I just think parents everywhere understood their pain on some level.

But, your solution is always preferable - state what you want, in writing. Thanks again for your post and kind words to me.

[spunkets]

The Schindlers made those atatements, because that's what they believe. Lies, or "no comment" are not allowed.

[RS]

"PARENTS are the ones I am talking about."

Dosen't the government have to decide to make this change ?
Does the government have the right to go into your marriage contract and retroactivly change it ?

What if the mother decides she wants to take care of her but the father does not ?
What if the mother and father both want to, but they are now living with their new spouses ?
What if the father does, but the parents were divorced years ago, and the father had no other contact ?
Does the widowed step-father get a chance at guardianship ?


Just how do you write this law that specifically sticks it's nose into the marriage contract ?

[Gondring]

Apparently there is not going to be a presumption that I would want to live now if the AMA blocks up coming state legislation.

Right. No presumption you would want to die, either. The government would keep its nose out, and it will be between you, your doctor, and your family/guardian.

Does it bother you to not have the government's nose in your life? Try DU.

[summer]

I think Jeb messed up by not calculating the end results but his motives were good. JMHO

I believe he did the best he could, and did everything any governor could have legally done. And, I really think some conservatives are quite silly if they think he could not run for president in 2008 and win in another landslide. He could -- despite Terri, and despite the attempted "dynasty" labels.

But, he says he's not running in 2008.

However, if he ever does run, I believe he wil win -- and be a somewhat different president from both his dad and his brother. And, I think he would be one of the finest presidents we've ever had in this country.

Conservatives on this forum who do not see him as the history-making, very successful political leader he is, has been, and can continue to be, are just being foolish, IMO. (And, yes, I am allowed to have an opinion!)

[Gondring]

This was something I really didn't understand the courts overlookking in this matter.

So what would you have had the court do differently--deny Mrs. Schiavo of her rights because her husband had children with another woman? Remember that the legal proceedings were held to determine what Mrs. Schiavo would have wanted and it was more than Mr. Schiavo's testimony that convinced the court that Mrs. Schiavo wouldn't have wanted her body to be kept going in her state. The Schindlers made the mistakes of changing their story too often, and of caring more about their own enjoyment than their daughter's wishes (yes, that was more of the testimony--how they enjoyed having Mrs. Schiavo around, even if she weren't really there mentally). It was all about them, not their daughter.

So...Mrs. Schiavo had selfish people around her...does that mean her rights should have been denied?

[Earthdweller]

"Does it bother you to not have the government's nose in your life? Try DU."

Heck ..even the libertarian freepers who what the Feds to stay out agree with State legislation in this matter..what's your problem? You want doctors to have free reign to kill you no questions asked?

[summer]

Just how do you write this law that specifically sticks it's nose into the marriage contract ?

For starters, it's "its nose." And it doesn't intrude upon a marriage contract -- it would restore rights to a spouse incapacitated whose marriage has grounds for divorce. Should such a spouse have no right to speak to end such a marriage? Because that's the situation now. And I do think that's unfair.

[summer]

deny Mrs. Schiavo of her rights because her husband had children with another woman? Remember that the legal proceedings were held to determine what Mrs. Schiavo would have wanted

Well, it's hard to know what Mrs. Schiavo would have wanted without her written directions. I'm hardpressed to believe she would have wanted another woman around, having children with her husband, for example.