No. I am referring to the finding of "patient's wishes." PVS is a red-herring. See In re GUARDIANSHIP OF Estelle M. BROWNING.
... I'd like to discuss some of the details if you'd care to elaborate on how this case throws light on deficiencies in the civil law process.
From an ages-ago post of mine, pardon if some of it seems out of place to answer your question ...
I opine that the civil court system is ill suited for a life/death decision, and that there are systemic issues in the judicial venue. I also opine that state legislatures have promulgated model language for living wills that is apt to cause "critical confusion" on the part of the signer. Critical confusion is where the paper means the opposite of what the signer thinks it does. I also opine that federal medicare/medicade law encourages hospice abuse.As for this specific case, the courts, while uananimous, contained at least two (dissenting) judges who held that the court system was NOT adhering to Congress's wishes. My cursory analysis agrees with them. The majority (and prevailing) rationales in the Federal Courts, for refusing to review the facts in evidence (using the Florida definition of "clear and convincing"), were bootstrapped or circular in logic. The Federal Courts also put all of the burden on Terri, including, for example, the stance that the denial of basic care was the "status quo" that the statutory law was designed to preserve.
Before the case ever got to the Federal Courts, the Florida appellate courts handled the case. As they did in the election fiasco of 2000 (cherry-picking a path through election statutes in order to overlook legislative intent), the Florida courts cherry-picked Florida statutes in Terri's case. Florida appellate courts also composed the question regarding Terri's wish (to be dehydrated to death) in a way that does not represent Terri's thought or rationalization process.
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.http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/1-24-01_DCA%20Opinion.pdf <-- 780 So 2d 176
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)http://www.2dca.org/opinion/June%2006,%202003/2D02-5394.pdf <-- 2003 Opinion
In my opinion, that question misrepresents several points. The court implies that Terri not only has to have an expectation of merely some recovery, but "a miracle [that] would somehow recreate her missing brain tissue." But it is not necessary to have ANY hope for recovery in order to have will to live. Many people with NO hope of ANY recovery would choose to live.
Second, that the death being sought is a natural death, in the sense that most people take the term "natural death." The court had to parse statutory language to reach a conclusion that a starvation and dehydration death is a natural death process. And at the time Terri would have made a reasoned decision, "life support" did not legally, clinically, or colloquially include the provision of basic necessities such as food, water, clothing and shelter.
Third, that Terri would conclude, either prosepctively or contemporaneously, that her death would be better for her family members. No reasonable person would conclude that Terri's blood family didn't want Terri to live. Terri would probably consider their wishes in making her own decision. Some people who want to die, choose to live based on pleading from loved ones. See suicide intervention.
In Westinghouse Elect. Corp., Inc. v. Bay County Energy Systems, Inc., 590 So. 2d 986, 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the court stated: Clear and convincing evidence requires that the evidence must be found to be credible; the facts to which the witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered; the testimony must be precise and explicit and the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue. The evidence must be of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established [Cboldt comment: and therefore also the falsity or inaccuracy of contrary testimony or evidence].Although this standard of proof may be met where the evidence is in conflict, In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So. 2d 258, 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), approved, 568 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1990), it seems to preclude evidence that is ambiguous.
Cited in an article relating to a completely different matter <--
A review of the evidence can obviously create a clear and convincing impression on the minds of some, that Terri's past words constitute an express desire to have her life terminated under the circumstances she was in. A significant number of FR posters agree with Greer's finding of fact.
But I don't believe one can objectively reach that conclusion, and certainly not to the standard of clear and convincing. One must give every benefit of the doubt to Michael, and deny every benefit of the doubt to Terri's family. That is not objectivity, it is bias.
One attribute of the process of judicial review is that once an erroneous finding of fact is reached, the burden shifts to the other side, and the burden of proof higher to reverse than it is to find in the first place. The "ordinary" judicial review process may be fine in most civil matters, where the stakes are not life and death. But it does not safeguard against trial court error, whether that error be based on malice, bias, senility, or lapse of attention.
Exactly, well said. Thank you for your informative and thoughtful post.